Legal Opinion

Tilton v. Russek

California Supreme Court

Decided January 18, 1916No. L. A. No. 3496PublishedCited by 13 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

Plaintiff sued to quiet title to a lot in the city of Los Angeles. There were four defendants named in the complaint. Two defaulted. The third, Louis, answered but did not appear at the trial nor introduce any evidence, and judgment was entered against him. The fourth, Russek, answered, denying the allegations of the complaint, and filed a cross-complaint alleging that Mrs. Decker (one of the defaulting defendants) was the owner of the property on September 20, 1911, on which date she had executed a mortgage upon the property, and that Russek had become the owner of said mortgage. The court…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Taylor v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Baird v. MonroeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Rue v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Town of Santa Monica v. GuidingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Ricketson v. RichardsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Chapman v. JocelynCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Smart v. PeekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Marysville Woolen Mills v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Hossom v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa CruzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950

8 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