Maionchi v. Nicholini
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sonoma County and from orders denying a motion to strike out an amendment to the complaint and denying a new trial. Albert G. Burnett, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
It is alleged in the complaint herein, that on March 18, 1901, plaintiff was the owner and holder of a note for the sum of one thousand dollars executed and delivered to him by the defendants Chauvet, and that on said day he indorsed and delivered such note to defendant Florindo Nicholini; that at the time of such indorsement, "and for a long time prior thereto, and ever since, plaintiff has been an old and infirm man, enfeebled in mind and body, and unable to attend to his property interests or rights, and was and is very susceptible to the overtures of others and was and is easily…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Murphy v. CrowleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Board of Directors of Modesto Irrigation District v. TregeaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Lee v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Kelley v. OwensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- More v. MoreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Fetterley v. RandallCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Ennis Brown Co. v. W. S. Hurst & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1905
- Ramboz v. StansburyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
- Neale v. SterlingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Miller v. ThompsonNevada Supreme Court · 1916
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.