Hutchon v. Rose

1 Citing case

  1. Bank of America v. Hollywood Improvement Co.

    46 Cal.App.2d 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)   Cited 10 times

    The court there held that the second note (due ninety days after date) was at least an implied contract to forbear for a period of ninety days and that alone constituted a sufficient consideration to support the instrument. To the same effect are General v. Anthony, 38 Cal.App. (2d) 321 [ 100 P.2d 1087]; Hammond Lumber Co. v. Cravens, 82 Cal.App. 685 [ 256 P. 428]; Lincoln Holding Corp. v. Levering, 219 Cal. 427 [ 27 P.2d 74]; Tripler v. MacDonald Lumber Co., 173 Cal. 144, 148 [ 159 P. 591]; Miller v. Roach, 15 Cal.App. (2d) 427 [ 59 P.2d 418]; Shlaudeman v. Grubel, 15 Cal.App. (2d) 499 [ 59 P.2d 873]; Hutchon v. Rose, 130 Cal.App. 735 [ 20 P.2d 357]; Parrino v. Rallis, 116 Cal.App. 364 [ 2 P.2d 515]; State Loan etc. Co. v. Cochran, 130 Cal. 245 [ 62 P. 466, 600]; Vassere v. Joerger, 10 Cal. (2d) 689 [ 76 P.2d 656], and Woollomes v. Gomes, 26 Cal.App. (2d) 461 [ 79 P.2d 728]. This same principle is enunciated in the late case of Easton v. Ash, 18 Cal. (2d) 530 [ 116 P.2d 433], decided August 28, 1941.