Legal Opinion

Spitler v. Kaeding

California Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1901No. L.A. No. 853PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Dyke, J.

This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage, dated January 30, 1897, made by the defendant Kaeding to the plaintiff, Spitler, and defendant Kate S. Williams, to secure the payment of a promissory note of even date for the • sum of two thousand five hundred dollars. The note was made payable to said Spitler and Kate S. Williams, and the mortgage to secure the same recites that “ the interest of said Kate S. Williams in the aforesaid not.e and mortgage is fifteen hundred dollars, and the interest of said William Spitler is one thousand dollars.” The fifteen hundred dollars belonged to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hart v. KetchumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Calkins v. Equitable Building & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Russ v. MebiusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Faylor v. FaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Mellor v. Bank of WillowsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Frank v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1933
  4. Eddy v. GallawayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  5. Williams v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1932

2 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