Legal Opinion

Hinckley Estate Co. v. Gurry

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided October 16, 1933No. 6003PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBudge, C. J.

This action was brought to foreclose a real estate mortgage. Respondents, as subsequent grantees of Gurry and wife, mortgagors, were made parties defendant, against whom appellant sought to recover a deficiency judgment. Motions for nonsuit made in behalf of respondents were sustained and judgment entered decreeing foreclosure of the mortgage but denying recovery as to respondents, and from the latter part of the judgment this appeal is taken.

The record discloses the following facts: On November 17, 1925, Gurry and wife made, executed and delivered to A. C. Hinckley their promissory note for…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Gould v. DaySupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Bank of Commerce, Ltd. v. BaldwinIdaho Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Jackson v. ClevelandMichigan Supreme Court · 1866
  4. White v. SchaderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Herrin v. AbbeSupreme Court of Florida · 1908

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Murr v. Selag Corp.Idaho Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Fuller v. McCallum & Robinson, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1937
  3. Brandt v. BoninIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Hinckley Estate Co. v. GurryIdaho Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Adams v. GeorgeIdaho Supreme Court · 1991

5 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