Legal Opinion

Burnett v. Stearns

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1867PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, Los Angeles County. This was an action of foreclosure on two certain notes and a mortgage of certain real property situated in Los Angeles County to secure their payment. The notes were set forth in hcec verba in the complaint; their due execution was not sufficiently denied in answer to raise an issue thereon.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court, First Judicial District, Los Angeles County. This was an action of foreclosure on two certain notes and a mortgage of certain real property situated in Los Angeles County to secure their payment. The notes were set forth in hcec verba in the complaint; their due execution was not sufficiently denied in answer to raise an issue thereon. The defendants, except Abel Stearns, were impleaded as parties having or claiming to have some interest in the property mortgaged, which interest was alleged in the complaint to he subsequent and subordinate to plaintiff’s…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Bhodes, J. :

The plaintiff objects to the defendants’ statement on motion for a new trial, on the ground that the notice was not served and the statement was not filed within the time prescribed by the Practice Act. The objection cannot be sustained. Under section one hundred and ninety-five, as amended in 1866, the party intending to move for a new trial has, in all cases, excejrt when the action has been tried by a jury, ten days within which to give notice of his intention after receiving written notice of the filing of the findings, or of the rendering or filing of the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lane v. GluckaufCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Mallory v. SeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. State ex rel. Cohn v. District CourtMontana Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Gregory v. NelsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  4. Perkins v. Sierra Nevada Silver Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Stoneman v. FritzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

22 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