Legal Opinion

David v. Frost

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 21, 1932No. Docket No. 7173PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.

The action upon which this appeal depends was brought for the purpose of recovering a judgment against the defendants for a deficiency which represented the difference between the face value of a promissory note which was secured by a deed of trust of certain real property and the price for which, under the provisions of said trust deed, the property was sold.

The principal defense to the action was that the interest provided by the terms of the promissory note, together with a bonus which was exacted from the maker of the note, constituted a charge for the use of the money which was lent that…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co.California Supreme Court · 1927
  2. American National Bank v. DonnellanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Sharp v. Mortgage Security Corp. of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Berry v. CrowellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  5. Ready v. M'donaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Stevens v. Plumas Eureka Annex Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Exterstein v. HigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Hartford v. Pacific Motor Trucking Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API