Legal Opinion

Gardner v. Rubin

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 22, 1957No. Civ. 22153PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.

Plaintiff brought this action to cancel a note and trust deed on the ground that there was fraud in the execution of these instruments. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant Rubin, to whom these instruments had been transferred, appeals.

In seeking a reversal, appellant contends: (1) “The findings of the trial court that the plaintiff, Horace Gardner, was semi-illiterate; that he was not aware of the fact that he had signed a note and deed of trust; that his signature to said instrument was fraudulently secured and that he relied on the false representations made by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Primm v. PrimmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Kennedy v. IsenbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. CIT Corporation v. PanacCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. Wright v. LoweCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Fleming v. KaganCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. Gormly v. DickinsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  4. Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp.California Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Jones v. Adams Financial ServicesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999

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