Legal Opinion
Liebelt v. Carney
California Supreme Court
Decided July 30, 1931No. Docket No. S.F. 13671PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.
This cause is now before us on rehearing. We have carefully re-examined the cause and find ourselves unable to reach any other conclusion than that heretofore announced. We adopt a portion of our former opinion, as follows:
“Action to recover the statutory penalty provided by section 3 of the Usury Act (Stats. 1919, p. lxxxiii, Act 3757, Deering’s General Laws). Defendant had judgment; plaintiff has appealed.
“ The transaction took the form of an advancement by defendant of the sum of $1,624.31 to discharge the final payments due from plaintiff to General Motors Acceptance Corporation for the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Rosemead Co. v. Shipley Co.California Supreme Court · 1929
- Blodgett v. RheinschildCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
- Taulbee v. HargisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Western Bank & Trust Co. v. OgdenCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1906
- Sanford v. KaneIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Penziner v. West American Finance Co.California Supreme Court · 1937
- Burr v. Capital Reserve Corp.California Supreme Court · 1969
- Calimpco, Inc. v. WardenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Bell v. Idaho Finance Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1953
- In the Matter of Vehm Engineering Corporation, Bankrupt. Baruch Investment Company, Dba Advance Industrial Finance Company and Trans-West Factors, Petitioners-Cross-Respondents-Appellants v. Curtis B. Danning, Trustee, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner-Appellee. Baruch Investment Company, Dba Advance Industrial Finance Company and Trans-West Factors, Petitioners-Cross-Respondents-Appellees v. Curtis B. Danning, Trustee, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1975
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.