Rice

Rice v. Dunlap

Bad Law
1928 Cal. LEXIS 498·205 Cal. 138·270 P. 199
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 1928Docket No. Sac. 4055.California945 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Langdon, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment denying recovery upon a promissory note signed by the defendants. The complaint is the usual one upon a promissory note and sets forth the note, dated Hanford, California, January 30, 1924, payable one year from date, in the sum of $5,550, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum and providing for the payment of attorney’s fees in the event legal action became necessary to enforce payment.

In the answer it is alleged that the consideration for said note was only $5,000, but the due execution and delivery of the note and its nonpayment are admitted, but it is asserted that $3,251.75 is due upon the note and no more. This amount is arrived at because of the further allegations of the answer to the effect that the defendants had originally given a note to plaintiff for $5,000, which had become due at the time of the execution of the note involved in this action'; that defendants could not pay the same and that plaintiffs exacted an additional $550 as a bonus for the renewal of this note for one year and added such bonus to the face of the renewal note and that interest aggregating $582.75 had been paid upon said renewal…

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.