Legal Opinion
Watt v. Wright
California Supreme Court
Decided December 9, 1884No. 8,474PublishedCited by 38 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.
On the 2d of October, 1873, the defendant, Wright, mortgaged certain real property situated in Fresno county, to secure payment of a promissory note given, in words and figures as follows':
“ San Francisco, October 2, 1873.
“ On the second day of January, 1874, without grace, for value received, I promise to pay to Messrs. Watt and McLennan, or order, at their office in the city of San Francisco, the sum of four thousand (§4,000) dollars in United States gold coin, with interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent, per month, payable quarterly in like gold coin. The interest, if not paid…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Wood v. GoodfellowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Sharp v. BairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Gurnee v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Rogers v. HatchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by38 opinions
- Willcox v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Colonial & United States Mortgage Co. v. Northwest Thresher Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1905
- Hibernia Sav. and Loan Soc. v. FarnhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Brandenstein v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Brusie v. GatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.