Legal Opinion

Dickson v. Retallic

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided September 13, 1926No. 11,422PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Denison

Betallic and Williamson had judgment, upon trial to the court, in an action on a promissory note. The defenses, when analyzed, all amount to want of consideration. The judgment was right.

The note in suit was a renewal of a previous note the consideration of which was the settlement of a claim, made by Betallic, as assignee of Williamson, against Dickson, upon an alleged agreement by the latter to take back certain stock in the Haigler Irrigation Company, sold by that company to Williamson, and to repay to him the purchase price thereof. The evidence would justify a finding that Betallic’s…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Coffee v. EmighSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
  2. Swem v. GreenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1886
  3. Holy Cross Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. GoodwinSupreme Court of Colorado · 1924
  4. Dawley v. Dawley's EstateSupreme Court of Colorado · 1915
  5. Retallic v. DicksonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Panko v. GrimesNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
  2. Spaulding v. PorterSupreme Court of Colorado · 1934
  3. Kentucky Dept. of Mental Health v. MullinsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1959
  4. State v. PisanoNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
  5. Mager v. United Hospitals of NewarkNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1963

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API