Legal Opinion

Connor v. Minier

Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California

Decided May 2, 1930No. C. A. No. 105PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

This is an action on a promissory note for

$300, in which The Williams Plan Company, hereinafter called simply the company, is named as payee. The plaintiff is the assignee of the payee for collection merely, and hence stands in its shoes as to all defenses. The defendant Gaste filed an answer alleging as a defense that the loan was usurious, and appeals from a judgment against him for the full amount of the note with interest.

Prom the record the following facts appear without dispute. The defendant H. W. Minier, desiring to borrow $300, went to the office of the company a few days before May…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Wallace v. ZinmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Duke v. LevyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Bowden v. GabelMontana Supreme Court · 1937
  2. George Jue v. Irving I. Bass, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
  3. Fred G. Clark Co. v. E. C. Warner Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
  4. Weiss v. BrandtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  5. White v. SweeneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

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