Legal Opinion

Haas v. Palace Hotel Co. of SF

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 12, 1950No. Civ. 14495PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.

Plaintiff, as the holder of overdue and unpaid bonds issued by the Palace Hotel Company of San Francisco, brought this action to foreclose the mortgage securing those bonds and for such other relief as the court might deem proper. The holders of other bonds issued by the defendant company intervened in opposition to plaintiff. The defendants and interveners interposed general and special demurrers to the complaint. The demurrers were sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff declined to amend and stipulated that a judgment of dismissal should be entered, subject to her right to appeal.…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. BentleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Chicago & Vincennes Railroad v. FosdickSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  4. Toby v. Oregon Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  5. Barbieri v. RamelliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. U. S. Financial v. SullivanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
  2. UTAH MORTG. AND LOAN CO. v. BlackUtah Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Madigan v. Potrans International, Inc. (In Re Madigan)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
  4. In Re FinnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  5. Tidrick v. General Bank (In Re Tidrick)United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · 1989

1 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