Legal Opinion

Fashion Hat Frame Co. v. Ringel

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 2, 1927No. Docket No. 5673PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.

Plaintiff sued on a promissory note for one thousand dollars executed by defendant Ringel, made payable to Sam Malnick, and indorsed by him and by the other defendant. Plaintiff had judgment for the amount prayed for, together with interest and attorney’s ‘fees, and the defendant 'Sam Malnick has alone appealed on a bill of exceptions.

The note was assigned to Joseph Malnick by Sam Malnick for money advanced by the former to the latter for the benefit of defendant Ringel. It was presented to Joseph Malnick by Sam Malnick fully executed by Ringel and indorsed by defendant Semon and by Sam…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stanley v. McElrathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Curtis v. SpragueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
  3. Oxnard v. VarnumSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1886

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Katz v. HaskellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  2. Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank of Fort Worth v. HeadTexas Commission of Appeals · 1928
  3. Biggers v. Bank of RinggoldCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
  4. Moore v. Trinity Oil & Gas Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Vigen v. Castle Building Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API