Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Budd

California Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1933No. Docket No. S.F. 13763PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, J.

This is an action for an accounting and other relief based upon a claim of usury in a loan from defendant Noble to plaintiffs. On May 2, 1925, plaintiffs, husband and wife, borrowed money from said defendant, executing a promissory note for one year in her favor in the amount of $11,000, secured by a deed of trust on real estate, with defendant Budd as trustee. The note contained provision for interest at twelve per cent per annum, payable monthly in advance. At the time of making the loan, $220 was deducted and paid to a real estate firm and an attorney for brokerage and legal services. At…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  2. First National Bank of Los Angeles v. MaxwellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Wienke v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Westman v. DyeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Alden v. MayfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc.California Supreme Court · 1939
  2. West Pico Furniture Co. v. Pacific Finance LoansCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Stock v. MeekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Penziner v. West American Finance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Heald v. Friis-HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959

20 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