Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cockerell v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 24, 1954No. L. A. 22764Published

1DissentSchauer, J.

I dissent.

Justice Carter’s opinion holds that an issue as to the fact of assignment must be presumed to have been raised and that the evidence fails to prove an assignment of the note to the plaintiffs. Neither the record nor the law supports this holding.

The clerk’s transcript shows that the answer of the defendants T. E. Denny and Edna Denny does not contain any denial sufficient to raise an issue as to the fact of assignment. The language of the answer is as follows: “Answering Paragraph IV of said complaint, these defendants do not have sufficient information as to the allegation…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. May v. Board of DirectorsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Kadota Fig Ass'n of Producers v. Case-Swayne Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
  3. Rudneck v. Southern California Metal & Rubber Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Aronson & Co. v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Phillips v. GoldtreeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887

7 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