Fox v. Mick
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 'Angeles County denying a new trial. Charles Monroe, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Action to recover upon an instrument purporting to be a deficiency judgment rendered by the district court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, in favor of plaintiff and against defendants herein. Judgment went for defendants. Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied, and he appeals from the order of court denying same.
The suit wherein the judgment was rendered by the district court of Colorado was one instituted to foreclose a mortgage executed to defendant Brooks by defendant Mick for the purpose of securing the payment of a certain promissory note made and delivered by her to Brooks.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Thompson v. WhitmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co. v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Peet & Co. v. HatcherSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Townsend v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Ryder v. RyderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Kegley v. KegleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Golden v. GoldenNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1937
- McCormack v. McCormackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- People v. SpitzerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.