Legal Opinion

Shipley Co. v. Rosemead Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1929No. Docket No. 5497PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURNELL, J., pro tem.

The complaint in this action is upon a promissory note in the ordinary and usual form, executed by The Rosemead Company, a common law trust, and indorsed by the individual defendants. By way o£ answer the defendants, appellants here, admitting nonpayment, set up as an affirmative defense that prior to the execution of the note a building contract had been entered into by one Jones and the defendants for the erection of certain improvements by Jones on a specified lot; that Jones procured a vault to be built in the. building under construction at a cost of $945, of which…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gifford v. CarvillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Sullivan v. SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Visalia Gas & Electric Light Co. v. SimsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Whittier v. GormleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
  5. Jordan v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Grant v. the Aerodraulics Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
  2. Weidner v. ZieglarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Redfield v. Abbott Shoe Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
  4. Benjamin Moore & Co. v. O'GradyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

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

Powered by the Exa API