Techow v. Pollack
| Decision Date | 09 June 1952 |
| Citation | 111 Cal.App.2d 556,244 P.2d 915 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TECHOW v. POLLACK et al. Civ. 18829. |
Levy, Bernard & Jaffe, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Peter T. Rice, Los Angeles, for respondent.
Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she executed for delivery and put into escrow her promissory note for $26,750, secured by a trust deed on her real property; that by certain transactions in the escrow defendant Barnett Pollack paid her $20,000 only for her note; that the difference of $6,750 between the amount stated in the note and the amount paid was a bonus, contrary to the usury laws of the State of California.
Plaintiff prayed that the Superior Court determine what balance was due from her to defendant, on the basis of an original indebtedness of $20,000, without interest; that the obligation to pay the additional $6,750 be declared void; and that defendant be enjoined from enforcing collection of any greater sum.
The trial court found that plaintiff owned real property upon which she proposed to build an apartment house; that she borrowed $100,000 for the purpose, secured by a first trust deed; that the note and second trust deed were made by plaintiff to the contractor who built the building, and were by him sold and transferred to defendant for $20,000; that, together with money advanced by plaintiff, the proceeds from the first loan, and the $20,000 from the second loan were all put into escrow and paid out by the escrow holder as construction of the building progressed; that, while the financing was all in one escrow, the sale of the note and second trust deed by the builder to defendant was in the due and ordinary course of business, and the consideration was good and valid.
Judgment was for defendant, together with $1,500 for counsel fees, as provided in the note and in the trust deed. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment.
At the time of plaintiff's motion for a new trial her counsel stated: 'Now may the record show that the only attack we are making is in the matter of attorneys fees.' However, on appeal plaintiff argues the sufficiency of the evidence.
Plaintiff's witnesses testified to facts which if believed by the trial judge would have supported findings for her. Defendant testified that he purchased the note and second trust deed at a discount, in good faith and for value. Other testimony and facts in the record support his testimony. So, under the familiar substantial evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forte v. Nolfi
...6 Cal.Rptr. 630; and Janisse v. Winston Investment Co., supra, 154 Cal.App.2d 580, 583--587, 317 P.2d 48; but cf. Techow v. Pollack (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 556, 557, 244 P.2d 915; and Harris v. Pollack (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 26, 28--30, 224 P.2d In the two cases involving Pollack, judgments fo......
-
Hunt v. Smyth
..."Attorney's fees may be recovered where the adverse claim is made by the mortgagor or grantor. [Citations.]" (Techow v. Pollack (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 556, 558, 244 P.2d 915, 916. See also Genis v. Krasne (1956) 47 Cal.2d 241, 246, 302 P.2d 289; Gudel v. Ellis (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 849, 858,......
-
Pacific Custom Pools v. Turner Const. Co.
...recovered where the adverse claim is made by the mortgagor or grantor...."' (Id. at p. 832, 101 Cal.Rptr. 4; see Techow v. Pollack (1952) 111 Cal. App.2d 556, 558, 244 P.2d 915; Hewlett Evans (1922) 56 Cal.App. 344, 347, 205 P. 492.)10 In Boyd v. Oscar Fisher Co. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 368, ......
-
Pacific Custom Pools v. Turner Const.
...fees may be recovered where the adverse claim is made by the mortgagor or grantor. . . .'" (Id. at p. 832; see Techow v. Pollack (1952) 111 Cal.App.2d 556, 558; Hewlett v. Evans (1922) 56 Cal.App. 344, In Boyd v. Oscar Fisher Co. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 368, an attorney fees clause was contai......