Legal Opinion

Rust v. Hill

California Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1941No. L. A. 17646PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment entered upon an order sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend, and the plaintiff’s election to stand upon the complaint as filed.

The plaintiff sued to recover the balance due on a promissory note for $7,600, dated January 1, 1931, and due in three years. The note was secured by a deed of trust on real property of the defendants. Upon default in payment, the real property was sold pursuant to the power of sale in the deed of trust for the sum of $1,000. After application of the proceeds of the sale…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Bakersfield Home Building Co. v. J. K. McAlpine Land & Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
  2. Harris v. FittingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Christina v. McLoughlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  4. Everts v. Newhouse Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. Bennett v. California Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hatch v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Worrel v. Farmers Bank of State of Del.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1981
  3. Ware v. HellerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
  4. Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. CasaulongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  5. Glashoff v. GlashoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

2 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