Howland v. Scott
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, P. J.
This appeal involves three suits brought on three promissory notes, and, also, three suits brought to cancel the same three notes for alleged fraud, not in the procuring of the three notes sued upon, but in procuring other notes • eventually taken up by the execution of the three notes sued upon.
The defense to the suit to cancel and rescind the notes is: First, that the holders took the same in due and ordinary course of business, without notice of the alleged fraudulent representations or other defenses; second, ratification by the makers of these notes after discovery of the alleged fraud;…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Schmidt v. MesmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Jackson v. MeinhardtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Tucker v. BenekeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Hutchins v. Security Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Monahan v. WatsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Schied v. Bodinson Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1947
- Holcomb v. Long Beach Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
- Bagdasarian v. GragnonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Payson Building & Loan Soc. v. TaylorUtah Supreme Court · 1935