Shipley Co. v. Rosemead Co.
California Court of Appeal
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
- Gifford v. CarvillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Sullivan v. SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Visalia Gas & Electric Light Co. v. SimsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Whittier v. GormleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Jordan v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Grant v. the Aerodraulics Co.California Court of Appeal · 1949
- Weidner v. ZieglarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Redfield v. Abbott Shoe Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1957
- Benjamin Moore & Co. v. O'GradyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935