Legal Opinion

Kleinsorge v. Kleinsorge

California Supreme Court

Decided July 24, 1901No. Sac. No. 812PublishedCited by 5 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Action to foreclose a mortgage. Defendant Albert F. Kleinsorge made default. Plaintiff had judgment against both defendants, from which and from the order denying her motion for a new trial defendant Mamie L. Kleinsorge appeals.

The note and mortgage were executed by both defendants, who are husband and wife. The note was dated August 1, 1896, and was drawn payable one year after date, with interest payable monthly. The note contained the provision, that if the interest was not paid as stipulated in the note, “ the whole note may, at the option of the holder, without notice to the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. London & San Francisco Bank v. BandmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Downing v. Le DuCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Security Loan & Trust Co. v. KauffmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  4. Bank of Woodland v. OberhausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Campan v. MolleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Graham v. FittsSupreme Court of Florida · 1907
  2. Caffaro v. RomaniCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. First National Bank v. MerrillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Hasman v. CanmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  5. Morehouse v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API