Legal Opinion

Tumansky v. Woodruff

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 26, 1936No. Civ. 9820PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

Plaintiffs in this case in return for a deed to the Windsor Apartments (which were heavily encumbered and under foreclosure at the time), and a note for $20,000 made to them as payees from one Rabinowitch and wife, received from Craig and Wallace $22,000 in notes. Of this latter sum $15,000 was made up of five several promissory notes of defendant and appellant herein, Leonard J. Woodruff (hereinafter called “Woodruff notes”). The Woodruff notes were made payable to Craig, and by Craig and Wallace, prior to maturity, indorsed, guaranteed and delivered to plaintiffs. Judgment…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Trout v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Law v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
  3. Adolph Ramish, Inc. v. WoodruffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Ambrose v. Hammond Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mercer v. LemmensCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  2. Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Osterberg v. OsterbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. Roberts v. Carter & PotruchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  5. Gribble v. MauerhanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961

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

Powered by the Exa API