Legal Opinion

Remillard Brick Co. v. Remillard-Dandini Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 6, 1942No. Civ. No. 11932PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

In this action to recover on certain promissory notes, plaintiff obtained judgment for the amount *746found by the trial court to be due as principal, interest and attorney’s fees. Defendant appeals from said judgment.

The amended complaint contained four counts. The first count was based on a $6,500 promissory note dated February 28, 1935, and a similar note in like amount given in renewal thereof on December 9, 1936. Plaintiff sought to recover only interest on the first-mentioned promissory note and to recover principal and interest on the last-mentioned renewal note. The second, count was…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Borland v. Nevada BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Nesbit v. MacDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  3. Goodfellow v. GoodfellowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Kennon v. ShepardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
  5. Bank of United States v. ForemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Petersen v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  2. Hughes v. Samedan Oil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1948
  3. Whitmire v. H. K. Ferguson Co.California Court of Appeal · 1968
  4. Cleverdon v. GrayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  5. Gateway Frontier Properties, Inc. v. Selner, Glaser, Komen, Berger & Galganski, P.C.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1998

2 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