Legal Opinion

Continental Mutual Savings Bank v. Elliott

Washington Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1932No. 23014. En BancPublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMain, J.

This action was brought to foreclose a, real estate mortgage, and for a deficiency judgment upon the promissory note secured by the mortgage. After the action was instituted, the Washington Mutual Savings Bank was joined as a party plaintiff. The defendants other than Jessie M. Elliott were defaulted, and are no longer involved in this controversy. The trial was to the court without a jury, and resulted in a decree directing the foreclosure of the mortgage, but declining to provide for a deficiency judgment in the event that the property did not sell for enough to satisfy the entire…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Union Trust Co. v. McGintyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  2. Guild v. ButlerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
  3. Vanderford v. Farmers' & Mechanics' National BankCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1907
  4. Cellers v. MeachemOregon Supreme Court · 1907
  5. Bradley Engineering & Manufacturing Co. v. HeyburnWashington Supreme Court · 1910

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. In re the Personal Restraint of StockwellWashington Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. ChotinerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Tabor v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  4. State Ex. Rel. Wash. Nav. Co. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1935
  5. ETCO, Inc. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1992

15 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