Gill v. Peppin
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order vacating a decree of foreclosure, annulling the sale made under it, and permitting the filing of an amended complaint to reform the mortgage for mistake. T. W. Harris, Judge. Reversed. The facts are stated -in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBrittain, J.
After the sale of mortgaged property under a decree of foreclosure, the plaintiff ex parte procured an order vacating the decree, annulling the sale and permitting the filing of an amended complaint to reform the mortgage for mistake. Subsequently on notice, separate motions to set aside the ex parte order were made by new defendants brought into the suit under a summons issued on the amended complaint, and by those of the original defendants who were directly affected by the decree of foreclosure. Both motions were denied. The new parties appeal from the second order only, and the original…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bailey v. TaaffeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Holtum v. GriefCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Pignaz v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Title Ins. Trust Co. v. Calif. Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Beard v. BeardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Stub v. HarrisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Thompson v. CookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Lilienkamp v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Linstead v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.