Fisk v. Casey
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. Charles W. Slack, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, and in its opinion rendered upon the former appeal, reported in 36 Pac. Rep. 668.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Action for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The facts are stated in the opinion rendered upon a former appeal. (Fisk v. Casey, 36 Pac. Rep. 668.) To a complaint in the usual form, the defendant alleges that after the maturity of the note he applied to the plaintifE to ascertain the amount due thereon for the purpose of paying the same and, having the property discharged from the lien of the mortgage, and that upon such application the plaintifE “claimed to be the owner of the property, and refused to entertain any ofEer from the defendant to pay off and discharge said mortgage.” The court found…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Daw v. NilesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Fiske v. CaseyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by9 opinions
- McCollum v. ClothierUtah Supreme Court · 1952
- Standard Box Co. v. Mutual Biscuit Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
- Wilcox v. SwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
- Phillips v. HooperCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
- Cohen v. City of AlamedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.