Legal Opinion

Bissell v. Forbes

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 19, 1905No. 52PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtCooper, J.

Action to recover on a promissory note, and to obtain a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage given as security therefor.

The court below held that the promissory note, except the last installment, was barred by the statute of limitations, and gave judgment for the last installment only, with a decree of foreclosure. From this judgment plaintiff prosecutes this appeal.

The sole question here is as to the construction to be placed upon the promissory note, which reads as follows:—

"$482.40. San Francisco, Cal., Oct. 27th, 1893.
“ On or before three years after date for value received, we promise to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Grattan v. WigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  2. Ewer v. MyrickMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1848

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Lee v. DeForestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  2. Tillson v. PetersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  3. Trigg v. ArnottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Boynton v. SalingerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1910
  5. Vatcher v. GrierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920

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