Legal Opinion
Martin v. Hickenlooper
Utah Supreme Court
Decided January 10, 1935No. 5424PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MOFFAT, Justice.
The relationship of the parties to the action will appear from a statement of the transactions out of which this cause arose. The Utah Savings & Trust Company is the receiver of the Fritsch Loan & Trust Company and is interested only as such receiver.
It appears that C. H. Stoven was the owner of the tract of land sought to be subjected to foreclosure of a mortgage back about the year 1921. On or about February 1, 1921, C. H. Stoven and Florence M. Stoven executed.a promissory note and a mortgage securing the same to the state of Utah for the sum of $3,500.
On or about June…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Wilkins, Neely & Jones v. GibsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Emmert v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Home Savings Bank v. BierstadtIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
- Gans v. . ThiemeNew York Court of Appeals · 1883
- Crippen v. ChappelSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Martin v. HickenlooperUtah Supreme Court · 1936
- Reimann Et Ux. v. Baum Et Ux.Utah Supreme Court · 1949
- Martin v. HickenlooperUtah Supreme Court · 1936