De Jarnatt v. Cooper
California Supreme Court
Appeal by the defendant Stephen Cooper from a judgment for the plaintiffs and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of the County of Colusa. Hatch, J.
1Opinion of the Court
Sharpstein, J.:
The real controversy in this case is whether it was the intention of the parties to include in a mortgage, given by Cooper to De Jarnatt, the north half of the north-west quarter of Section 26, which, it is claimed by respondents, was omitted by the mutual mistake of the mortgagors and the mortgagees.
The Court found that it was their intention to include it, and that it was left out by mutual mistake. The appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to justify that finding. The evidence comes up in a bill of exceptions, and is somewhat voluminous; but for the purpose of…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Liodas v. SahadiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- Moore v. CoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Ward v. WatermanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Menning v. SourisseauCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Glass v. BryantCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1946
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.