Swanson v. Skiff
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
REYNOSO, J.
The trial court ruled that defendants were obligated to pay on a promissory note they executed. They argue that there was no consideration since plaintiff had paid the amount of the note to a corporation owned by the three of them prior to the execution of the note. Accordingly, they maintain a prior contribution is not consideration.
Quite to the contrary, we are convinced that since defendants agreed to execute the promissory note at the time the contribution was made by plaintiff, consideration exists. That the note was executed thereafter in fulfillment of the promise…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Nestle v. City of Santa MonicaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Minton v. CavaneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Canales v. City of AlvisoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Charles C. Chapman Building Co. v. California MartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Pierce v. WrightCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co.California Court of Appeal · 1986
- M&F Fishing, Inc. v. Sea-Pac Insurance Managers, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Okura & Co. (America), Inc. v. Careau GroupDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1991
- Kirk Corp. v. First American Title Co.California Court of Appeal · 1990
- Native Sun Investment Group v. Ticor Title InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.