Legal Opinion

Remington v. Mulholland

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 21, 1931No. Docket No. 8055PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSpence, J.

This is an appeal by certain defendants from a portion of the same judgment which we had under consideration in E. K. Wood Lumber Co. v. Mulholland, (No. 8071) ante, p. 475 [5 Pac. (2d) 669], the opinion in which has been this day filed. The appealing defendants, as holders of the deeds of trust and as purchasers at the foreclosure sale under the second deed of trust, appeal from that portion of the judgment in which it was decreed that plaintiff Remington was entitled to enforce a mechanic’s lien in the sum of $1800 and that said lien was “prior and superior to the claims and demands of the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kerckhoff-Cuzner Mill & Lumber Co. v. OlmsteadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Sunset Lumber Co. v. BachelderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  3. E. K. Wood Lumber Co. v. MulhollandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. BBIC Investors, LLCCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  2. Wiggins v. SEARCY FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASS'NSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
  3. E. K. Wood Lumber Co. v. MulhollandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Magnum Builders v. Preferred Bank CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API