Tedesco

Tedesco v. Crocker National Bank

Good Law
148 Cal. App. 3d 1211·196 Cal. Rptr. 534·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2443·37 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 843
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 14, 1983Civ. 69358California1,915 words

Opinion

Opinion

Amerian, J.

This appeal is from the order of dismissal entered after demurrer to the complaint of Louis Tedesco (herein appellant) was sustained without leave to amend. We reverse.

Facts

We accept as true for purposes of this appeal all facts properly pled by appellant. (Thompson v. County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 746 [ 167 Cal.Rptr. 70 , 614 P.2d 728 , 12 A.L.R.4th 701 ].) In his complaint filed September 9, 1982, appellant sets out one cause of action against respondent Crocker National Bank (herein Bank). That cause of action is denominated “Forgery, Negligence, Breach of Warranty of Good Title, Money Had and Received and Conversion.” In addition, causes of action are alleged against other named defendants, none of whom is a party to this appeal. Paragraphs from those causes of action are incorporated by reference into the cause of action against Bank.

In the complaint it is alleged that from March to October 1981, appellant delivered (to defendant Campellone) $50,000 for purposes of investment in Florida. Of the $50,000, the sum of $20,000 was in the form of a check dated March 24, 1981, and payable to defendant Edith Bloom (herein Bloom). Ten thousand dollars was in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.