Meyer v. Lovdal
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, and from an order denying a new trial. Peter J. Shields, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Action on a promissory note alleged by defendant to have been fraudulently obtained from him by the payee. Plaintiffs claim to be the purchasers thereof in good faith before maturity and for value. The court took the case from the jury and directed a verdict for plaintiffs for the amount of principal and interest. Defendant appeals from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. Plaintiffs constitute a copartnership doing a banking business in San Francisco under the name and style of Daniel Meyer.
1. It is urged that plaintiffs did not comply with the law as declared…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Collins v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Bell v. PleasantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Holmes v. WarrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Eames v. CrosierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Jordan v. GroverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- People v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- Hall v. E. W. Wells & SonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Blochman Commercial & Savings Bank v. MorettiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Citizens' Bank v. StewartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- King v. TarabinoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.