Legal Opinion
McMannus v. Temple Estate Co.
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 29, 1935No. Civ. 9907PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROTH, J., pro tem.
Respondent, as assignee of Baash-Ross Tool Company and as plaintiff, brought suit on a promissory note in the principal sum of $12,000 and a guaranty thereof. The note was executed by defendant Temple Estate Company, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as estate, and recited on its face that it “is secured by a declaration of trust covering real and personal property”. The declaration of trust in question named a number of beneficiaries, all of whom were creditors of the estate, respondent’s assignor being one of them. The other three defendants, of whom appellant Dupuy…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- First Congregational Church of Christ v. LowreyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Driscoll v. WintersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Lasky v. BewCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by5 opinions
- Boteler v. ConwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Mortgage Finance Corp. v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Ralston Purina Co. v. CarterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Coutin v. NessanbaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
- Steiner Lumber Co. of Contra Costa, Inc. v. SteggeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962