Legal Opinion

Deming v. Smith

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 23, 1937No. Civ. S. C. 38PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHINN, J., pro tem.

When the mortgage note of W. B. Deming and Ruth Deming in the sum of $125,000, given in 1926, and thereafter extended, fell due in February of 1933, negotiations were instituted for its further extension. On May 17, 1933, an agreement was reached for the extension until January 1, 1935, of the maturity of the debt, which amounted, with interest and taxes computed to May 15, 1933, t.o the sum of $135,747.54. This agreement, signed by W. B. Deming, owner of the property, his wife, Ruth Deming, and respondent Catherine B. Dallett Smith, in the form of written instructions to a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Williams v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Bury v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Bradbury v. DavenportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. McDonald v. HuffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Little v. Union Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Guth v. Texas Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1946
  2. Walker v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
  3. Hamud v. HawthorneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  4. In re ChrismanDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1940
  5. Bastajian v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

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