Legal Opinion
Dewar v. Hagans
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided February 28, 1944No. Civil No. 4561PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMcALISTER, C. J.
This is a suit to collect a promissory note and to foreclose a chattel mortgage securing the same. From a judgment in favor of the defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
The facts are not in dispute and may be stated as follows:' On April 7, 1938, the defendant, Ola E. Hagans, gave A. Standish a promissory note for $1800, payable one year after date, and a chattel mortgage securing it also dated April 7, 1938, describing certain fixtures, show cases, soda fountain, etc., located in the drug store of mortgagor - at 606 West Van Burén Street, Phoenix, Arizona. It was signed by Ola E. Hagans and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Murphey v. BrownArizona Supreme Court · 1909
- Wingard v. BanningCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- Stephens v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923
- Scottsdale Ginning Co. v. LonganArizona Supreme Court · 1922
- Blackwood v. Farmers Bank Trust CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bates & Springer of Arizona, Inc. v. FriermoodArizona Supreme Court · 1973
- United States (Treasury Dept., IRS) v. Globe Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 1976
- Gathman v. First American Indian Land, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1965
- Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. Lincor PropertiesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1988
- Bates & Springer of Arizona, Inc. v. FriermoodCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1972