Legal Opinion

Katz v. A. J. Ruhlman & Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 12, 1945No. Civ. 12828PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.

Plaintiff, as administrator with the will annexed, sued to recover upon a promissory note delivered by defendant to the decedent. The defendant answered alleging it had an offset against the note in money due from decedent which plaintiff was estopped to deny because of certain acts of the former executor of the estate. The trial court rejected the defense and gave judgment for the full amount of the note with interest.

In its appeal from the judgment defendant attacks the findings of fact as not supported by the evidence, and argues that the executor waived the statutory requiremént that, a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Farrell v. County of PlacerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Estate of Lucas v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  3. Thomasson v. WalkerSupreme Court of Virginia · 1937
  4. National Grocery Co. v. Kotzebue Fur & Trading Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Franklin Fire Insurance Co. v. HolmesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Cruise v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  2. Battuello v. BattuelloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  3. Satterfield v. GarmireCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
  4. In Matter of Estate of LecicWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Kristovich v. JohnsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966

10 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