Wolf

Wolf v. Brakebill

Good Law
1916 Cal. App. LEXIS 268·32 Cal. App. 300·162 P. 918
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 12, 1916Civ. No. 2012.California1,823 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

The first of these actions was brought by plaintiff to recover a balance upon two promissory notes made to him by defendants. In the second action, plaintiffs Chas. Thompson and C. B. Williams (made defendants in the first) sought a decree to have the notes constituting the subject of the first action canceled and annulled. In both actions defendants B. Brakebill and Mrs. B. Brakebill suffered default. The grounds of defense pleaded by Thompson and Williams to the recovery sought upon the notes are substantially the same as those set forth in their complaint to have the notes canceled and annulled. By stipulation of the parties the two actions were consolidated for trial, as a result of which trial it was adjudged and decreed that plaintiff in the first action have judgment for amount of the notes sued upon, and that Thompson and Williams, plaintiffs in the second action, take nothing thereby.

From the judgment so entered, and an order of court denying their motion for a new trial, Thompson and Williams appeal.

The complaint upon the notes was in the usual form, setting forth copies thereof, signed “Mrs. B. Brakebill, B. Brake-bill, Chas. Thompson, C. B. Williams,” as makérs…

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.