Legal Opinion

Searles v. Gonzalez

California Supreme Court

Decided July 5, 1923No. L. A. No. 7436PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWaste, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to certain real property. The defendant answered and filed a cross-complaint setting up an unpaid note and mortgage executed by the plaintiff’s grantors, who were made cross-defendants. On its face the note was barred by the statute of limitations, but the defendant alleged that the makers thereof had, at various times, “acknowledged to this defendant their certain indebtedness to her and promised to pay the same, which said acknowledgments and promises were contained in several writings signed by said cross-defendants.” She prayed for…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Beckwith v. TalbotSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Marks v. . CowdinNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
  3. Ryan v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  4. Jenkins v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
  5. Concannon v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Western Coal & Mining Co. v. JonesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Gibson v. De La Salle InstituteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  3. Sterling v. TaylorCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Buck v. HelveringCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1934
  5. Franklin v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963

43 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