Legal Opinion
Reinert v. Proud
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 28, 1935No. Civ. 10009PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRICKE, J., pro tem.
Action by appellant for balance due on a promissory note secured by a trust deed.
The first point urged is that no issue was raised as to the allegation of paragraph IV of the complaint “that on the 18th day of January, 1930”, Jane J. Rosenquist assigned without recourse her entire interest in the note and trust deed to the plaintiff, and that “since said 18th day of January, 1930, the plaintiff has been and now is the sole owner and holder of the said note and deed of trust”. The answer is as follows: “That defendant has no information or belief sufficient to enable him to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bedell v. HerringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Moore v. CraigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Del Fanta v. ShermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Linder Hardware Co. v. Pacific Sugar Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1911
- Pugh v. DawsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
3Cited by8 opinions
- Western Title Insurance & Guaranty Co. v. BartolacelliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Spencer v. Continental Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
- Hoelzle v. Fresno CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Cockerell v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
- Cockerell v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1954
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.