Legal Opinion

Weinberger v. Weidman

California Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1901No. S.F. No. 1860PublishedCited by 16 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of a promissory note dated March 2,1892, due one year from date. The action was commenced September 6, 1898, about eighteen months after the right of action was barred, unless there was a new promise or acknowledgment sufficient to keep the debt and the lien alive. The defense of the statute is made.

Anticipating the defense under the statute, or for the purpose of founding the action upon a new promise, the plaintiff in his complaint attempts to aver a new.promise to pay the debt, made April 16, 1897, in a letter written by…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Forbes v. HydeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  2. Burkett v. GriffithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Southern Pacific Co. v. ProsserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. London & San Francisco Bank v. BandmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Stringer v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Norgart v. Upjohn Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Jaffe v. StoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  3. Samuels v. MixCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Easton v. AshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Leffek v. LuedemanMontana Supreme Court · 1933

11 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