Legal Opinion

Cody v. Bean

California Supreme Court

Decided March 11, 1892No. 14412PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mono County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFarland, J.

The defendants Bean and Brown executed a mortgage to the assignor of plaintiff upon two adjoining mines, one of which is called the Rattlesnake Extension Mine. Several other persons were made defendants, as claiming some interest in the mortgaged premises. All the defendants made default except James H. Sturgeon, who answered, setting up, in brief, that plaintiff acquired no interest in the undivided two thirds of said Rattlesnake Extension by said mortgage made by Bean and Brown; that the latter had no right or title to or in said two thirds; and that at the time of the execution of said…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of San Francisco v. LawtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. McComb v. SpanglerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Ord v. BartlettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Beronio v. Ventura County Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Kizer v. CaufieldWashington Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Dobbins v. Economic Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Hoppe v. HoppeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  5. California Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Cheney Electric Light, Telephone & Power Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1895

8 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