Legal Opinion
McLane v. Placerville & Sacramento Valley R.R.
California Supreme Court
Decided April 23, 1885No. 8,985PublishedCited by 30 opinions
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. Action to compel the specific execution of the provisions of a trust mortgage. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
The complaint herein was demurred to by the Sacramento and Plaeerville E. Co., on the grounds thus stated by the pleader:
“ First—that the said complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
“ That it appears upon the face of the complaint, that the instrument therein set out and alleged to be a mortgage was not made and executed in conformity with the statute authorizing the said defendant, the Plaeerville and Sacramento Valley Eailroad Company (a corporation), to make and execute such instrument.
“ That it appeal’s upon the face of said complaint that the board of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Jerome v. McCarterSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- American Bridge Co. v. HeidelbachSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Cowdrey v. Galveston, Houston, & Henderson RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Burton v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Meyer v. Johnston & StewartSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Winslow v. Harold G. Ferguson Corp.California Supreme Court · 1944
- Ellis v. Vernon Ice, Light, & Water Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1893
- McPherrin v. TittleSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. ClintCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Nusbaum v. ShaperoMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.