Credit Finance Corp. v. Mox
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtKnight, J.
This is an action to recover on a promissory note executed by the defendants Gustav and Otto Mox and J. L. Deane for the payment of $25,000. The answers admitted due execution of the note, but pleaded want of consideration and usury. The trial took place before the court and judgment was given in favor of plaintiff for the full amount of the note and interest; and from such judgment the defendant Gustav Mox has appealed. The appeal was taken on the judgment-roll alone, and the sole question presented is the legal sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment.
It appears from the findings…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lamb v. HerndonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Rohrbacher v. AitkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Snowball v. SnowballCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Ector v. OsborneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
- Adams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Burr v. Capital Reserve Corp.California Supreme Court · 1969
- Silver v. ShemanskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- 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
- Gombiner v. SwartzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Whittemore Homes, Inc. v. FleishmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.