Legal Opinion

Maddox v. Wyman

California Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1892No. 13269PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Vanclief, C.

This is an action to foreclose a chattel mortgage on the furniture of a lodging-house, to secure the payment of a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: —

“San Francisco, January 1, 1887.
“For value, I promise to pay to the order of Mrs. M. H. McDonald twenty-four hundred dollars, in payments as follows: Five hundred dollars on the fifteenth day of *675February, 1887, and fifty dollars on the fifteenth day of March, 1887, and a like amount of fifty dollars on the fifteenth day of each and every month thereafter till the full amount is paid, with interest at the rate of seven…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Beal v. StevensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Leonard v. TylerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hall v. JamesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Clemens v. LuceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Phelps v. MayersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Mercantile Trust Co. v. San Joaquin Agricultural Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. Podrat v. OberndorffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API