Legal Opinion
Ehrenreich v. Shelton
California Court of Appeal
Decided February 26, 1963No. Civ. 7045PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MONROE, J. pro tem. *
The plaintiff and appellant brought an action to recover the sum of $20,000 upon a written instrument dated May 22, 1959, signed by plaintiff.
This instrument, although informally worded, is in effect a nonnegotiable promissory note. The defendant admitted the execution and consideration of the note but denied that there was anything due thereon. The defense was based upon the contention that agreements entered into by the parties on May 26, 1959, constituted a novation and therefore all liability upon the note had been terminated. The court found this issue in favor of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
- People v. RobargeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Alexander v. AngelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Ayoob v. AyoobCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Taylor v. BunnellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hunt v. SmythCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
- Lippold v. HartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- People v. ValverdeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
- Jackson v. JacksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- People v. Van GordenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.