Legal Opinion
Harper v. French
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 15, 1938No. Civ. 5835PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAXET, J., pro tem.
The action seeks a recovery upon a promissory note. The complaint is in the usual and customary form. The answer denies the delivery of the note described in the complaint; admits that no part of the note has been paid; denies any default on the part of the defendants; and affirmatively pleads that the note was executed without any consideration whatever.
The case was tried before a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the principal sums specified in the note, together with interest thereon and attorneys’ fees. Judgment was…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Burke v. DulaneySupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Cooper v. CooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Gleeson v. DunnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Silva v. GordoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Benjamin Moore & Co. v. O'GradyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
3Cited by8 opinions
- Coast Bank v. HolmesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Meyer v. Glenmoor Homes, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1966
- Oakland Medical Building Corp. v. AureguyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Fontana v. UppCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Paratore v. ScharetgCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.