Legal Opinion
Caviglia v. Jarvis
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 12, 1955No. Civ. 8516PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FINLEY, J. pro tem. *
This is an appeal from a judgment reforming a promissory note on the ground that by reason of error on the part of the draftsman the terms of payment set forth in the note did not truly state the agreement between the parties. The appeal also purports to be from the order denying appellants’ motion for a new trial. There is no direct appeal from such an order. It is, however, reviewable upon appeal from the judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §§956 and 963.)
Appellants executed the promissory note, which was secured by a deed of trust, as part of a transaction whereby respondents…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Martin v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Reed v. NormanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Poledori v. NewmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Danielson v. NealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Oak Grove School District v. City Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Fields v. RileyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Flax v. Prudential Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1957
- Centerville Amusement Co. v. SalihCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. SimonDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.