Legal Opinion

Chinn v. Penn

California Supreme Court

Decided October 7, 1918No. L. A. No. 4612PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

The defendant, Crenshaw,. appeals from the judgment foreclosing a mortgage executed hy the defendant, Plarry Penn, to Crenshaw, and by Crenshaw indorsed to the plaintiff.

The note secured hy the mortgage contained no obligation except the promise to pay the principal thereof, three thousand five hundred dollars, with interest at seven per cent, payable quarterly, to be compounded if not paid when due, and providing that the whole sum of principal and interest should become due at the option of the holder upon failure to pay any installment of the interest when due. The mortgage declared that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hewitt v. DeanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Meyer v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Bostwick v. McEvoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Trinity County Bank v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Orange Growers' Bank v. DuncanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. S.F. T. Seminary v. Monterey County G. & E. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Heist v. Dunlap CompanySupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
  3. Katz v. HaskellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  4. Basile v. California Packing Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
  5. Ralston Purina Co. v. CarterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962

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