Legal Opinion

Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Pendergrass

California Supreme Court

Decided September 3, 1935No. Sac. 4826PublishedCited by 76 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

This cause was transferred to this court after decision by the District Court of Appeal. We are satisfied with and adopt a portion of the opinion rendered therein, which is as follows:

“This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover judgment on a promissory note in the sum of $4,750. Trial was had before a jury. The note was payable upon demand, and the complaint was a simple action based upon the promissory note. The defendants in their answer interposed two defenses, to-wit: That the note was obtained by fraud, and also was secured by a chattel mortgage. The plaintiff introduced the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Harding v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Booth v. HoskinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Lindemann v. CoryellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  4. McArthur v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Pierce v. AvakianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by76 opinions

  1. Glendale Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Marina View Heights Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1977
  2. Casa Herrera, Inc. v. BeydounCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Price v. Wells Fargo BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. FPI Development, Inc. v. NakashimaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Tahoe National Bank v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971

71 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