Hooker v. Burr
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. . The plaintiff in error commenced this action in the proper state. court to procure a decree cancelling a deed of the prem- ■ ises mentioned in the complaint, .executed by the defendant Hammel to the defendant Rhodes, and also directing that a deed should be executed to the plaintiff by defendant Hammel or Burr, or both, conveying the same property to the plaintiff, which had been purchased by him under the sale in…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. . The plaintiff in error commenced this action in the proper state. court to procure a decree cancelling a deed of the prem- ■ ises mentioned in the complaint, .executed by the defendant Hammel to the defendant Rhodes, and also directing that a deed should be executed to the plaintiff by defendant Hammel or Burr, or both, conveying the same property to the plaintiff, which had been purchased by him under the sale in foreclosure hereinafter mentioned. Defendant Burr was sheriff at the time pf that sale, and conducted the same and executed…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice .Peckham,
after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error contends that the several alterations of the law as it existed at the time when this mortgage was executed, regarding the time of redemption and the amount of interest payable to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale in order to redeem the land sold, impair the obligation of a contract as to all mortgages in existence before the alterations were made.'
The -first inquiry is, Whose contract was- impaired by the alteration of the law? It is seen that the amount due on the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bronson v. KinzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1843
- McCracken v. HaywardSupreme Court of the United States · 1844
- Tyler v. Judges of the Court of RegistrationSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Barnitz v. BeverlySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Turpin v. LemonSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- McCabe v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Southern Railway Co. v. KingSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. CadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Beaver County Building & Loan Ass'n v. WinowichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Farmers and Mechanics Sav. Bank of Minneapolis v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.