Title Etc. Trust Co. v. California Dev. Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Page, McCutchen & Knight, and Page, McCutchen, Knight & Olney, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
The appeal is from an order appointing a receiver. It is taken by the New Liverpool Salt Company alone.
The action was begun to foreclose the lien of a mortgage or deed of trust made by the California Development Company, to secure the payment of certain bonds issued by it. The order appointing the receiver was made ex parte, and was founded on the complaint and the affidavit of one Henry L. Lyon.
We find it necessary to consider but two objections urged against the regularity of the order: 1. That the court abused its discretion in making the order upon the facts shown; and 2. That…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bank of Woodland v. StephensCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
3Cited by9 opinions
- Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
- A. G. Col Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Lake v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. BelcherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. California Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.