Legal Opinion
Mortgage Guarantee Co. v. Smith
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 1, 1935No. Civ. 9786PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNourse, P. J.
Plaintiff sued in unlawful detainer and had judgment for restitution of the premises and for accrued rents. The defendants admit everything essential to plaintiff’s recovery except the validity of its title. They have appealed on the judgment roll alone and hence we have a record consisting of the pleadings, the findings, and the judgment.
Preliminarily the appellants argue that the action is not in unlawful detainer but is one to try title. The question is not a new one. In Nineteenth Realty Co. v. Diggs, 134 Cal. App. 278, 288 [25 Pac. (2d) 522], and Hewitt v. Justice’s Court, 131 Cal. App.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hewitt v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Nineteenth Realty Co. v. DiggsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
- Nittler v. Continental Casualty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Harris v. SeidellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
3Cited by15 opinions
- Eden Place v. Sholem PerlCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Alonso v. HillsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1950
- Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
- Bliss v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
- Leonard v. FallasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.