Kane

Kane v. Eastman

Good Law
110 Cal. App. 753·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 53·295 P. 63
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 1931Docket No. 7239.California1,916 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This action was brought to recover from defendants George A. Eastman and Mildred C. Eastman, his wife, the sum of $10,850, the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the leasehold of an apartment house in Los Angeles called the “Marlborough Apartments”, and of the furniture therein. The plaintiffs also sought to recover the same amount from defendant Goldberg on the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on certain furniture in an apartment house called the “Pickwick Apartments’’, executed by Goldberg to defendant George A. Eastman, and by him assigned to plaintiff Charles H. Kane.

The court found for defendants Eastman and against defendant Goldberg, and from the judgment entered thereon plaintiffs have appealed.

The facts of the transaction are as follows: On October 1, 1923, plaintiff Charles H. Kane entered into an agreement with defendants Eastman whereby he agreed to sell and they agreed to buy the leasehold and furniture of the Marlborough Apartment House for the sum of $45,000. The purchasers agreed to pay $13,750 in cash; to indorse to plaintiff Kane a promissory note for $17,500 executed by defendant Goldberg on October 1, 1923, to George A. Eastman, which note was secured…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.