Legal Opinion

McCloskey v. Shortle

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1937No. 4200PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BRICE, Justice.

This direct action was brought by the appellants (plaintiffs below) against the appellee (defendant below) to cancel a special master’s deed, whereby certain real estate was conveyed, in pursuance of a sale made in a foreclosure proceeding, upon the alleged ground that such deed is void. We will refer to the parties as plaintiffs and defendant, as in the district court.

The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that it showed on its face that all questions raised had theretofore been…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Federal Title, C., Guaranty Co. v. LowensteinNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1933
  2. Smith v. RandallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
  3. Bechtel v. WierCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Investment Registry, Ltd. v. Chicago & M. E. R.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1913
  5. Koontz v. Northern BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1873

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Speckner v. RieboldNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1974
  2. Speckner v. RieboldNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Ballew v. DensonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1958
  4. First National Bank of Boston v. GarrettNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Columbus Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. BrownNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1966

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API