Legal Opinion
Lopez v. Puzina
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 28, 1966No. Civ. 22478PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMolinari, J.
Plaintiffs, John and Emanuela Lopez, as holders of a promissory note, brought this action against defendants, Milo and Nora Puzina, as alleged endorsers of this note. From the judgment of nonsuit entered against them plaintiffs appeal. The sole issue presented is whether defendants are endorsers of the subject note so as to give plaintiffs a right to recover against them upon the refusal of the makers to pay.
The subject note dated July 15, 1958 in the principal sum of $4,298.26, payable to the order of Anthony Joseph Caruso and Marie Doris Caruso, his wife, was executed by Robert W. Leseo and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Body-Steffner Co. v. Flotill Products, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Meyer v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- People v. BarryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
- Cadigan v. American Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1955
- Symonds v. ShermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Estrada v. River Oaks Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Adams v. Madison Realty & Development, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Wright v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Pribus v. BushCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Adams v. Madison Realty & DevelopmentCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.