Legal Opinion

Rottman v. Hevener

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 7, 1921No. Civ. No. 3385PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtFinlayson, P. J.

On March 15, 1919, defendant signed and delivered to plaintiff an instrument as follows:

“$1100.00 Calexico Cal. 3-15 1919.

‘ ‘ On demand, after date, without grace, for value received I promise to pay to Sam E. Rottman, trustee, at the International Bank of Calexico, California, at its banking house in Calexico, the sum of Eleven Hundred Dollars, with interest, from date, payable quarterly, at the rate of 10 per cent per annum, until paid, and attorney’s fees of 10 per cent on the amount then unpaid, and twenty dollars if suit be commenced or other proceedings taken to enforce the pay ment of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Rottman v. HevenerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  2. Wienke v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Prescott v. GradyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  4. O'Neil v. MagnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Gilley v. HarrellTennessee Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Walnut Creek Pipe Distributors, Inc. v. Gates Rubber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1964
  2. Smith v. HillCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
  3. Robertson v. DodsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  4. Spencer Kennellt, Ltd. v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Hanley v. Marsh & McLennan-J. B. F. Davis & Son, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1941

4 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