Legal Opinion
Willens v. Hagge
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 7, 1957No. Civ. 22357PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DRAPEAU, J. pro tem.*
Plaintiff, Irving Willens, paid defendant H. H. Hagge $30,000, to be used in a tract building project at Twenty Nine Palms, California. This was responsive to an advertisement by Mr. Hagge, seeking investors in his project. The property on which the houses were to be built was owned by Mr. Hagge and his wife Lillian, as joint tenants.
Mr. and Mrs. Hagge made, executed, and delivered to plaintiff their promissory note for $30,000.
They also entered into a guaranty agreement and a limited partnership agreement with plaintiff.
All of these instruments were illegal, because they…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Domestic & Foreign Petroleum Co. v. LongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Robbins v. Pacific Eastern Corp.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Eberhard v. Pacific Southwest Loan & Mortgage Corp.California Supreme Court · 1932
- Tevis v. BlanchardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Security-First National Bank v. J. G. Ruddle Properties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Gormly v. DickinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Conrad v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Smith v. TurnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Bellerue v. Business Files Institute, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1964
- Rankin v. BankeyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961