Tarke v. Bingham
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sutter County and from an order denying a new trial. E. A. Davis, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This action was to reform, and, as reformed, to foreclose a mortgage upon real estate. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial this appeal is taken.
The note to secure which the mortgage was given was a note payable three years after date, and was signed James Dunne, William J. Bingham, Anne Bingham. The note described in the mortgage for which the security was given was made payable “one year after date,” and was signed James Dunne, William J. Bingham, Anne Dunne. The complaint set forth the note and mortgage, and alleged that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Prouty v. DevinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Bank of Mendocino v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by56 opinions
- Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1945
- Vai v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Bainbridge v. StonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- Schaefer v. BerinsteinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
- Sime v. MaloufCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
51 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.