Legal Opinion

Mayhall v. Eppinger

California Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 1902No. L.A. No. 1065PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Defendants demurred to plaintiff’s complaint for want of facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and, plaintiff declining to amend, defendants had judgment, from which plaintiff appeals.

It is alleged in the complaint that plaintiff executed and delivered to defendant H. Eppinger, Jr., his promissory note, and at the same time executed to said defendant a trust deed to certain land to secure the payment of said note; that after the maturity of the note Eppinger commenced an action by a verified complaint against this plaintiff and his wife,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Felton v. Le BretonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Armstrong v. MorrillSupreme Court of the United States · 1872

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Flack v. BolandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Commercial Centre Realty Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. LaufferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  4. McDonald v. Smoke Creek Live Stock Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Carpenter v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1945

3 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