Legal Opinion

McCoy v. Torrance County Savings Bank

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided August 27, 1914No. 1657PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from District Court, Torrance County; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge. General principles concerning granting of relief in such cases. 90 Ind. 346, 198; 112 Ind. 221; 152 H. S. 596; Spelling on Injunction & Ex. Leg. Bern.

Read the full summary

Appeal from District Court, Torrance County; Edward L. Medler, Presiding Judge. General principles concerning granting of relief in such cases. 90 Ind. 346, 198; 112 Ind. 221; 152 H. S. 596; Spelling on Injunction & Ex. Leg. Bern. Yol. 1, 2 Ed., Secs. 83, 84; 22, Cyc. 848; 23 Md. 471; Joyce on Injunctions, Sec. 689, 690; 12 Mich. 297; 59 Md. 313; 12 B. Mon. 426; 26 Miss. 314; 44 la. 179. Sustaining of defendant’s motion for judgment on pleadings improper. 180 H. S. 28; 17 Minn. 372; 31 Cyc. 606; supra; 53 L. B. A. 438; Abbott’s Trial Brief, Yol. 11, p. 1249; 81 Fed. 524; 95 Cal. 471; 48 Cal.…

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION.

LEIB, D. J.—

1 (After stating the above facts)., Two questions are all that need be considered on this appeal. J ■ 1. Was the failure of appellants to secure the payment of the deficiency judgment by security, to be agreed upon by them and II. B. Jones, such non-compliance with their contract as to release the appellee from its obligation? In their complaint, appellants do not allege that they furnished the bank such security, nor do they allege a legal excuse for not doing so. If the furnishing of such security was a condition precedent to the forbearance of the bank in issuing…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Pillsbury v. BlumenthalNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Stalick v. WilsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API