Legal Opinion

McKeehan v. Pacific Finance Corp.

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 9, 1932No. Docket No. 601PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff decreeing cancellation of- a promissory note executed by plaintiff and made payable to defendant, defendant appeals. Plaintiff’s complaint, which was filed on August 16, 1928, embraces three causes of action. The first alleges that there was an entire lack of consideration for the note, that the defendant has demanded payment of it and plaintiff has reasonable apprehension if it is left outstanding he will thereby suffer serious injury. The second alleges that the indebtedness for which the note was given was an indebtedness due to defendant from a…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. French v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Union Collection Co. v. BuckmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Gardner v. WatsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Teague v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Lynch v. Superior Court of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. GreenbachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  2. South Seas Corp. v. SablanDistrict Court, Northern Mariana Islands · 1981
  3. Sears v. StelznerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
  4. Kartchner v. HorneUtah Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Damerel v. North American Bond & Mortgage Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933

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

Powered by the Exa API