Legal Opinion

Reynolds v. Hook

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 27, 1930No. Docket No. 245PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WARMER, J., pro tem.

The transaction out of which this action arose might be stated as follows: In the year 1917 A. W. Reynolds was indebted to Hook Brothers in the sum of $27,000, for which he gave them a note secured by a trust deed on the premises described in the complaint. In March, 1922, the principal and interest on the trust deed was due. Reynolds was unable to pay the same. One of the Hook Brothers notified him, Reynolds, that they would have to foreclose the trust deed. Peter Beatty was a son-in-law of A. W. Reynolds. Beatty, Reynolds and J. F. Hook, one of the Hook Brothers, began…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Bancroft-Whitney Co. v. McHughCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Wadleigh v. PhelpsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Couts v. WinstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Calmon v. SarrailleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Hind v. Oriental Products Co., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1925

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Beeler v. American Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Adams v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. In Re San Francisco Industrial Park, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 1969
  4. Allen v. Illinois Mineral Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1939
  5. Diel v. BaxterCalifornia 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