Legal Opinion

Daniels v. Johnson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1900No. L.A. No. 676PublishedCited by 19 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

CHIPMAN, C.

Foreclosure. On February 33, 1893, one Wilson made his promissory note to plaintiff, payable February 3, 1893, and to secure its payment he executed his mortgage, of even date with the note, to foreclose which this action was brought on June 9, 1897. Defendant Hammond made default, and plaintiff dismissed the action as to defendants Wilson, Howe, and Hogan. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendants Johnson and wife appeal from the judgment and the order denying their motion for a new trial. The only defense is the four year statute of limitations, section 337 of the Code of Civil…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Lord v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  2. Southern Pacific Co. v. ProsserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Williams v. NaftzgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Roberts v. FitzallenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Wells v. HarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Bogart v. George K. Porter Co.California Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Everts v. MattesonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Fitzgerald v. FlanaganSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
  4. Winans v. HareSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
  5. Doran v. DoranSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909

14 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