Legal Opinion

Lady v. Worthingham

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 8, 1943No. Civ. 13814PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

Plaintiff filed an action on a promissory note in the sum of $2,000 executed in his favor by defendant.

After trial before the court without a jury, the trial court found that there was not any consideration for the promissory note and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover thereon. The trial judge, however, gave judgment against defendant in the sum of $361.37, which was equivalent to the amount allowed by the probate court to an attorney for probating an estate of the value of the one hereinafter described.

The evidence being viewed in the light most favorable to defendant (respondent),…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Brydonjack v. RieckCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  2. Shahabian v. NajarianCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Thornley v. JonesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Stieglitz v. SettleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1990
  2. Ames Nowell v. Alexander C. DickCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1969
  3. Lawrence v. TschirgiSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
  4. Carlson, Collins, Gordon & Bold v. BanducciCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Magee v. State BarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962

7 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