Legal Opinion

Trinity County Bank v. Haas

California Supreme Court

Decided July 26, 1907No. Sac. No. 1463PublishedCited by 23 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

The defendants appeal from a decree foreclosing a- mortgage and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

On January 11, 1904, the defendants F. G. Haas and Emily E. Haas made and deliverd to plaintiffs their promissory note for $5,969.73, payable one year after date, with interest thereon at the rate of one per cent per month from date until paid, said interest payable quarterly, and, if not so paid when due, to be added to the principal and to bear interest at the same rate as the principal sum. On the following day, said defendants executed and delivered to plaintiffs a mortgage…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Sichler v. LookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Hewitt v. DeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Belloc v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  4. Meyer v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Clemens v. LuceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Bisno v. SaxCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
  2. Johnson v. KaeserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Wienke v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Hunt v. SmythCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  5. Clark v. PaddockIdaho Supreme Court · 1913

18 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