Legal Opinion

McMillan v. United Mortgage Co.

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1968No. 5365PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

2Per curiam

The narrow question for decision in this case is whether, under the “One-action Rule” announced in NRS 40.430, 1 the holder of 27 promissory notes totaling $52,650, which were secured by a second deed of trust, may maintain a personal action on the notes against the maker after the security has been lost by the foreclosure of a first deed of trust without any participation or wrongdoing on the part of the holder of the promissory notes which the second deed of trust secures.

We answer in the affirmative and hold that the “One Form of Action Rule” does not apply to a sold-out junior…

3Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Savings Bank of San Diego v. Central Market Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
  3. McMillan v. United Mortgage Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Brophy v. DowneyMontana Supreme Court · 1902

4Cited by9 opinions

  1. McDonald v. D.P. Alexander & Las Vegas Boulevard, LLCNevada Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Keever v. Nicholas Beers Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Carrillo v. Valley Bank of NevadaNevada Supreme Court · 1987
  4. First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A. v. StaufferIdaho Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. UTAH MORTG. AND LOAN CO. v. BlackUtah Supreme Court · 1980

4 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