Legal Opinion

Pastene v. Pardini

California Supreme Court

Decided January 29, 1902No. S.F. No. 2364PublishedCited by 33 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

This was an action upon a promissory note. The complaint contained the usual averments. It charged that Luigi Pardini, “for a valuable consideration, made, executed, and delivered to plaintiff a promissory note,” etc. It also averred non-payment of the principal sum and interest, and that the whole was due and unpaid. The answer was a denial that “Luigi Pardini, for a valuable consideration or otherwise, made, executed, and delivered to plaintiff, or made or executed or delivered to plaintiff, a promissory note for the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, or any other sum.” The next denial of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Melone v. RuffinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. De Baker v. Southern California RailwayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Le Mesnager v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Indianapolis Piano Manufacturing Co. v. CavenIndiana Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Bell v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

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

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Caminetti v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Everts v. MattesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Foster v. KeatingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  4. People v. DiazCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  5. Estate of HormanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968

28 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