Legal Opinion

Swortfiguer v. White

California Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1904No. S.F. No. 2557PublishedCited by 15 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

VAN DYKE, J.—

This is an appeal from the judgment of the lower court dismissing the action. The defendant White, on the ninth day of July, 1888, made his promissory note to La Société d’Epargnes et de Prévoyanee Mutuelle (a corporation), and on the same day executed a mortgage on his land to secure said note. On July 8, 1893, said corporation mortgagee commenced an action to foreclose said mortgage; summons was issued the same day, but was never served or returned. B. M. Murray and E. H. Hansen were made defendants, for the reason, as alleged in the complaint, that they claimed some interest…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Vrooman v. Li Po TaiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  2. White v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Grant v. McArthurCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Busching v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Davis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Witter v. PhelpsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Watson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972
  5. Pearson v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

10 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