Legal Opinion

Andrews v. Zook

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 21, 1932No. Docket No. 8304PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TUTTLE, J., pro tem.

This is an action brought to recover $7,922.81, upon a promissory note. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff. The appeal is prosecuted from the judgment.

The note was executed by F. H. Zook, who died and whose estate is being administered by defendant, and it reads as follows:

“No. 12315 Due 9-5-24
“Des Moines, Iowa, September 5, 1923.
“Twelve months after date, for value received, I or we jointly and severally as principals, promise to pay to the order of The United State Bank, Des Moines, Iowa, Six Thousand and no/100 Dollars, payable: $500.00 Dec. 4, 1923, $500 on…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Belloc v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Keene Five Cent Sav. Bank v. ReidCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
  3. Lowenstein v. PhelanNebraska Supreme Court · 1885
  4. California Savings & Loan Society v. CulverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Watts v. CreightonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1892

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bisno v. SaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  2. Jones v. WiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Trigg v. ArnottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Ghirardelli v. Peninsula Properties Co.California Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Stewart v. ClaudiusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

4 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