Legal Opinion

Connon v. Goebel

California Supreme Court

Decided February 10, 1933No. Docket No. L.A. 13184PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

Action by innocent purchaser for value before maturity of two negotiable promissory notes each secured by a separate mortgage upon a single tract of land in Los Angeles County. The usual decree of foreclosure and sale was entered. Defendants have appealed. The defense is usury at the inception of both transactions. The court found as a fact that usury was present. But this fact is not disclosed upon the face of the notes. The purchase for value before maturity without notice renders the plea of no avail as against plaintiffs. (Liebelt v. Carney, 213 Cal. 250 [2 Pac. (2d) 144, 78 A. L. R.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Liebelt v. CarneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Brown v. Guar. Mortg. Co. of Cal.California Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Nuckolls v. Bank of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API