Legal Opinion

Moore v. Russell

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 6, 1931No. Docket No. 7653PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This action is one upon a promissory note. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff against all of the defendants, the defendant Russell prosecutes this appeal.

It is conceded by the appellant that he executed the note as a principal obligor; that the note was due at the time of the commencement of the action and that no part thereof had been paid. The grounds urged for a reversal of the judgment may be divided into two main groups: First, appellant contends that the entire transaction, out of which arose the note in suit, was unlawful and furnished no valid consideration to support…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. American Exchange Nat. Bank of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  3. California Raisin Growers' Ass'n v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Tilton v. BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  5. Wayman Investment Co. v. WessingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Epstein v. FrankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
  2. Heald v. Friis-HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Williams v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Green v. Future TwoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  5. Henrietta M. Faucher, Etc. v. Dolores Knoll Lopez, Louise M. Giovannoni, and Joseph E. HazelCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1969

3 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