Legal Opinion

Mazuran v. Stefanich

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 6, 1928No. Docket No. 6564PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DOOLING, J., pro tem.

This is an action upon a note and mortgage. Judgment went for defendants below and plaintiff appeals. Defendants in their answer set up as an affirmative defense that the note and mortgage were procured by certain fraudulent representations of plaintiff and the trial court found in defendants’ favor on this issue. In this behalf the court found that prior to the execution and delivery of the note and mortgage plaintiff, who is an attorney at law, promised and assured defendants, who are husband and wife, that he could and would in consideration thereof perform seven…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Taylor v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Schmidt v. MesmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. French v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Cooley v. Miller & LuxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Green v. DuvergeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Lobdell v. MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Kane v. MendenhallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Chung v. JohnstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  4. McNulty v. CoppCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
  5. Nelson v. SchoettgenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

9 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