1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.App.3d
  4. 207 Cal.App.3d
  5. 207 Cal.App.3d 998 (1989)
 

BOYLE v. SWEENEY

Docket No. A041465.

207 Cal.App.3d 998 (1989)

255 Cal. Rptr. 153

WILLIAM BOYLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWIN P. SWEENEY et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four.

February 3, 1989.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

COUNSEL

James T. Proctor and James R. Lorenzato for Defendants and Appellants.

Thomas A. Paoli and McQuaid, Bedford, Brayton, Clausen & Grell for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

CHANNELL, J.

After a court trial, the trial court determined that respondent William Boyle was entitled to recover the principal due on the promissory note of appellants Edwin P. Sweeney and Ronald Brown. Sweeney and Brown appeal, contending that codified antideficiency protection (see Code Civ. Proc., § 580b)1 precludes this result. We affirm the judgment.

I. FACTS

In 1981...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases