Legal Opinion

Heimstadt v. Tapered Parts, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 4, 1957No. Civ. 22295PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShinn, P. J.

The present action was for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage in which judgment of foreclosure was decreed. Defendant appeals from a portion of the judgment which it is claimed was in excess of the amount due. The contention is that a tender was made of the amount due which was sufficient to stop the running of the interest obligation and to save the defendant the costs of suit.

The note provided: “Should an attorney be employed to procure payment hereof by suit or otherwise, the undersigned, jointly and severally, agree to pay a reasonable sum as attorney’s fees therefor.” On February 14,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Holland v. PaddockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Hunt v. SmythCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  2. Gray1 CPB, LLC v. SCC Acquisitions, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
  3. Still v. Plaza Marina Commercial Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  4. Gaffney v. Downey Savings & Loan Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1988
  5. Thomassen v. CarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

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