Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. A. A. Sanderson, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Vanclief, C.
On June 12, 1889, the respondent, Hilton, executed to appellant a mortgage on real estate to secure payment of a promissory note of the same date made jointly by the White River Lumber Company and W. D. Parsons, for $650 and interest, payable to the order of plaintiff nine months after date; and also to secure the further sum of $3,064, payable to plaintiff according to the terms of a written agreement of same dater attached to and made a part of the mortgage, of which the following is a copy:
“ The Parke & Lacy Company of San Francisco, Cal., lessors, hereby lease unto the White…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Bragg v. ShainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Truckee Lodge v. WoodNevada Supreme Court · 1879
- United States v. CorwineU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1860
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sather Banking Co. v. Arthur R. Briggs Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
- McCollough v. Home Ins. Co. of N.Y.California Supreme Court · 1909
- Bridge v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Casey v. GibbonsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Morley-Murphy Co. v. Van VreedeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.