Legal Opinion
Kee v. Becker
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 23, 1942No. Civ. 12901PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BISHOP, J. pro tem.
A. L. and Harry Becker, being over $1,400 in default on a promissory note executed by them in favor of O. B. Kee, the latter obtained a judgment against them foreclosing the chattel mortgage which they had given to secure the note. From this judgment A. L. Becker appeals, contending (a) that the plaintiff had forfeited his right to foreclose his chattel mortgage, and indeed his right to recover the balance admittedly due on the note it secured, because he had converted to his own use the property covered by the mortgage and (b) that evidence was erroneously refused…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- McCaffey C. Co., Inc. v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Gruber v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Southern Pacific Co. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Herron v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Bristol v. BurtNew York Supreme Court · 1810
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Henderson v. Security Nat. BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
- 366-388 Geary Street, L.P. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Rochester Capital Leasing Corp. v. K & L Litho Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1970
- Bertone v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
- Henderson v. Security National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.