Freiermuth v. Steigleman
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz County and from an order denying a new trial. Lucas F. 'Smith, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion'.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Foreclosure. The court found on sufficient evidence that defendant and one Jacob Steigleman, for many •years prior to April 25, 1876, and thenceforward were, and now are, husband and wife; that on July 9, 1892, defendant made and delivered her promissory note to her husband, and to secure the same executed at the same time a mortgage on certain four separate tracts of land; that long prior thereto, to wit, on April 25, 1876, defendant in due form of law executed and recorded her declaration of homestead on the first three of the tracts embraced in the mortgage, and that they were…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Burkett v. BurkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Merced Bank v. RosenthalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Gleason v. SprayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- In re Estate of LambCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Dolbeer v. LivingstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Wolfe v. LipsyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
- Rice v. McCarthyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Kinsell v. ThomasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
- Katsivalis v. Serrano Reconveyance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1977
- Estate of TeelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.