Federal Housing Administration v. Morris Plan Company of California

Ninth Circuit

Federal Housing Administration v. Morris Plan Company of California

214 F.2d 821, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2774

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 4, 1954

Docket13472_1

StatusPublished

This text of 214 F.2d 821 (Federal Housing Administration v. Morris Plan Company of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Federal Housing Administration v. Morris Plan Company of California, 214 F.2d 821, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2774 (9th Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We granted a rehearing in this case limited to the question of whether the *822 judgment should be reduced by elimination of the claim of $2,000, an amount loaned one Gould in excess of the limit of $2,500 we held to be contained in § 2 (b) of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S. C.A. § 1703(b).

After due consideration of the arguments made on rehearing as to the correctness of our construction of said § 2 (b), we adhere to the conclusion reached in our former opinion. 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 756. A confusion of the Gold loans with the Gould loans resulted in our failure to consider the Gould loans in the former opinion.

It is ordered that the sum of $1,032.95 principal and $262.08 interest allowed by the District Court on the $2,000 Gould note be disallowed and the judgment of the District Court is accordingly reduced in the sum of $1,295.03. As so modified the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We granted a rehearing in this case limited to the question of whether the *822 judgment should be reduced by elimination of the claim of $2,000, an amount loaned one Gould in excess of the limit of $2,500 we held to be contained in § 2 (b) of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S. C.A. § 1703(b).

After due consideration of the arguments made on rehearing as to the correctness of our construction of said § 2 (b), we adhere to the conclusion reached in our former opinion. 9 Cir., 211 F.2d 756. A confusion of the Gold loans with the Gould loans resulted in our failure to consider the Gould loans in the former opinion.

It is ordered that the sum of $1,032.95 principal and $262.08 interest allowed by the District Court on the $2,000 Gould note be disallowed and the judgment of the District Court is accordingly reduced in the sum of $1,295.03. As so modified the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 F.2d 821, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-housing-administration-v-morris-plan-company-of-california-ca9-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack