Connick v. Hill
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Humboldt County refusing to set aside a sale under a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage. G. W. Hunter, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
COOPER, C.
This is an appeal from an order made by the superior court of Humboldt county refusing to set aside a sale made under foreclosure.
The plaintiff had regularly obtained a judgment and decree of foreclosure against defendants and others, and the court in the decree appointed one Belcher a commissioner for the purpose of making the sale. Ho directions were given in the decree as to the manner in which the property should be sold. The tract of land as a whole consisted of one body of thirteen hundred and forty acres. The commissioner, after receiving the order of sale, gave due and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- White v. CrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Shirey v. All Night and Day BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Marston v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. BehnkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Hopkins v. WiardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Odell v. CoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Rauer v. HertweckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Bechtel v. WierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Federal Land Bk. of Spokane v. CurtsIdaho Supreme Court · 1927
- Meux v. TrezevantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.