Legal Opinion

Phillips v. Hagart

California Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1896No. Sac. No. 85PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County and from an order refusing a new trial. Matt.-F. Johnson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This action involves the right of possession to a certain tract of land, and the complaint is in the usual and ordinary form for such cases. The appeal presents but few questions for the court’s consideration.

One Morrison was the owner of the land. While such owner, a mortgage resting upon it was foreclosed, and the defendant, Hagart, became the purchaser at the sale under the foreclosure proceedings. Thereafter, and within the time allowed for redemption, Morrison transferred the property by deed to these plaintiffs, who at once took steps to redeem from the sheriff’s sale. Hot-withstanding…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Marshall v. ShafterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. North Dakota Horse & Cattle Co. v. SerumgardNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Hamilton v. HamiltonMontana Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Bateman v. KelloggCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922
  4. Leet v. ArmbrusterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Brown v. TimmonsMontana Supreme Court · 1927

14 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