Legal Opinion

Mudge v. Steinhart

California Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1888No. 11489PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County.' The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSearls, C. J.

This is an appeal by William SchoIIe, one of the defendants, from a final judgment in the above-entitled cause, subjecting certain real property, situate and being in the city and county of San Francisco, to sale, to satisfy claims of the several firms, and a corporation composing the parties plaintiff.

Defendant Seholle, the appellant, was, at the date of the complaint, a non-resident of the state of California, and a resident of New York City, in the state of New York. The summons was served upon him by publication, and no answer having been filed by or for him, judgment was taken by default.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. Belcher v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Walker v. McCuskerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Burtnett v. KingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Hallidie v. EngingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
  3. McFarland v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Lang v. LangCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  5. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. WelchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

22 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