Legal Opinion

Ex parte Lichtenstein

California Supreme Court

Decided August 22, 1885No. 20030PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMorrison, C. J.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this case sets forth “that a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the Police Court of the city and county of San Francisco, charging that he was engaged in and was conducting the business of a pawnbroker in said city, and as such received from a person therein named one gold watch as a pledge in consideration of a loan of thirty dollars, and did then and there unlawfully and wilfully charge on said loan a rate of interest in excess of two per cent per month, to wit, interest at the rate of four per cent per month, and thereupon the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Jackson v. ShawlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Ex Parte KoserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Carter v. Seaboard Finance Co.California Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Levinson v. BoasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. In Re FullerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Ex Parte SohnckeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  5. In Re WasherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

8 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