Legal Opinion

Erganian v. Brightman

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 8, 1936No. Civ. 10488PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

to the year 1932, plaintiff and respondent herein was the owner of a lot in Long Beach, improved with a one-story building. He had borrowed $16,000 from a bank, giving his promissory note therefor and executing a mortgage on said property in favor of the bank to secure the note. Erganian was unable to meet the note when it fell due in 1932, whereupon the bank instituted foreclosure proceedings, and, pursuant to a judgment obtained therein, did on April 15, 1932, cause the sheriff to sell said property under the decree of foreclosure to satisfy the indebtedness. The property…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Goldtree v. SpreckelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  2. City of Pasadena v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  3. Hardy v. HardyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
  4. Demartin v. AlbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  5. Litch v. KernsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Berri v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Goddard v. Security Title Insurance & Guarantee Co.California Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Keidatz v. AlbanyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Smith v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
  5. Johnston v. OtaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941

7 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