Raynor v. Drew
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to redeem a mortgage. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
— On May 14, 1875, the plaintiff gave to the defendant an instrument in writing, which in form was an absolute deed. It is admitted by the pleading that this instrument was to secure the payment of a promissory note; and therefore it was a mortgage, and under the present doctrine, did not convey the title (Taylor v. McLain, 64 Cal. 514; Healy v. O’Brien, 66 Cal. 519), and did not give a right of possession. (Civ. Code, sec. 2927.) But at the time the plaintiff gave to the defendant a verbal lease of the premises for one year. The lease is alleged in the complaint to have been “ until…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Arrington v. LiscomCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Hidden v. JordanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Taylor v. McLainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- De Espinosa v. GregoryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Wadleigh v. PhelpsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Mercantile Trust Co. v. Sunset Road Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1917
- Major-Blakeney Corp. v. JenkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Mayborne v. Citizens Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Hall v. ArnottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.