Legal Opinion

Central Bank of Oakland v. Proctor

California Supreme Court

Decided January 28, 1936No. S. F. 15599PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This cause was taken over after decision in the District Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, because of one of the issues involved herein, viz., whether section 2924% of the Civil Code, enacted in 1933, which section precludes the entry of a deficiency judgment unless one year, as distinguished from the former period of three months, has elapsed between the recordation of the notice of breach and election to sell and the date of sale under a deed of trust, may be applied to deeds of trust, executed prior to the effective date of the section. The trial court and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Brown v. FerdonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Rottman v. HevenerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
  3. Chan Kiu Sing v. GordonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Bennett v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  5. Hammond Lumber Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Birkhofer v. KrummCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  2. Bakersfield Home Building Co. v. J. K. McAlpine Land & Development Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. Everts v. BlaschkoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  4. Kirkpatrick v. StellingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Miller v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938

4 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