Legal Opinion

Tucker v. Nicholson

California Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 1938No. L. A. 16281PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.

The three plaintiffs allege that they paid in full a deficiency judgment entered against them and six other persons after a mortgage foreclosure sale. They bring the present action against the executrix of the estate of one-of said six judgment debtors to recover his proportionate part of the debt paid by plaintiffs. Defendant executrix prosecutes this appeal from a judgment that she is liable in the sum of $4,026.09 for one-fourth of the deficiency judgment.

The deficiency judgment was entered on August 23, 1932. On July 22, 1933, the plaintiffs herein paid to the judgment creditor $5,816.61,…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Insurance Co. v. DutcherSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Chipman v. Morill & WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
  3. Forsythe v. Los Angeles Ry. Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Williams v. RiehlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Ralston v. WoodIllinois Supreme Court · 1853

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Underwood v. Waterslides of Mid-America, Inc.Court of Appeals of Tennessee · 1991
  2. In Re National Mortgage Equity Corp. Mortgage Pool Certificates Securities LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1987
  3. Winzler & Kelly v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
  4. Larsen v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1984
  5. Paradise Valley Hospital v. SchlossmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983

10 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