Legal Opinion

Curtis v. Thaxter

California Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1928No. Docket No. L.A. 9491PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

This is an action to recover upon a promissory note and to foreclose the mortgage securing it, default having been made in the payment of both principal and interest. The terms of the note, so far as here material, are as follows: “ ... I promise to pay . . . three thousand . . . dollars with interest from date until paid, at the rate of twelve per cent per annum; payable quarterly. Should the interest not be so paid, it shall become a part of the principal, and thereafter bear like interest as the principal. ...” The answer admitted the principal indebtedness but denied any liability for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Wallace v. ZinmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Verbeck v. ClymerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Blodgett v. RheinschildCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  5. In Re WasherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Heald v. Friis-HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  2. Taylor v. BuddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Babcock v. OlhassoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  4. Gerson v. KelseyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Denny v. HartleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957

1 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