Legal Opinion

Sacramento Bank v. Alcorn

California Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1898No. Sac. No. 332PublishedCited by 53 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County and from an order denying a new trial. Justin Jacobs, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.

This action was brought to determine conflicting claims to real property.

In May, 1893, defendant and wife conveyed the property to trustees, to secure a sum of money then loaned by the bank to Alcorn, due according to the terms of a promissory note. The note by its terms became due one year from date. The deed of trust provided that if the debt was paid the trustees should reconvey to the trustors, but if default were made they were authorized to sell after certain designated notice and to convey to the purchaser. The moneys realized were to be appropriated to payment of the debt and certain…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. King v. GotzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Bateman v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. More v. CalkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Sav. & Loan Soc'y v. DeeringCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885

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

3Cited by53 opinions

  1. Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. BentleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  2. Abbott v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1958
  3. Security Pacific National Bank v. WozabCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Samara v. MatarCalifornia Supreme Court · 2018
  5. State v. MartinezIdaho Supreme Court · 1926

48 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