Legal Opinion

Monahan v. Watson

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 16, 1923No. Civ. No. 4029PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.

This is an action on a promissory note executed by both defendants to plaintiff as the payee. The defendant Watson was not served with summons and did not appear. The defendant Hopkins filed an answer and a cross-complaint wherein he alleged that the note, which had been given for a part of the purchase price of certain personal property in the city of Los Angeles purchased by defendants from plaintiff, was procured by fraud in that plaintiff made certain alleged false and fraudulent representations respecting the property. Hopkins claimed to have been damaged in the sum of twenty thousand…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. MesmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Duffy v. HobsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Moore v. . MooreNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  4. Kullman, Salz & Co. v. Sugar Apparatus Mfg. Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  5. Tucker v. BenekeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Schied v. Bodinson Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
  3. Calpetro Producers Syndicate v. Chas M. Woods Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
  4. El Zarape Tortilla Factory, Inc. v. Plant Food Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Jackson v. MeinhardtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API