Moore v. Russell
California Court of Appeal
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
- Armstrong v. American Exchange Nat. Bank of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
- California Raisin Growers' Ass'n v. AbbottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Tilton v. BeecherNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Wayman Investment Co. v. WessingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Epstein v. FrankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Heald v. Friis-HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Williams v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Green v. Future TwoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- 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.