Legal Opinion

Sacramento Bank v. Murphy

California Supreme Court

Decided September 20, 1910No. Sac. No. 1738PublishedCited by 16 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.

On August 27, 1887, Ellen M. Murphy borrowed from the plaintiff bank $13,400, giving to it her promissory note. The note provided for the payment of the principal four years after date, or on August 27, 1891, but it was provided also therein that if the note was not paid at maturity the loan might be renewed from year to year at the option of the holder of the note. A trust-deed in the ordinary form was given by Ellen M. Murphy to secure the payment of the note, and W. P. Coleman and E. B,. Hamilton were designated in the instrument as trustees. The trust-deed provided as to trustees that “it…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Grant v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. Weber v. McClevertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Travelli v. BowmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Central Savings Bank of Oakland v. LakeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Hohn v. Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. Knapp v. KnappCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Flack v. BolandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Sipe v. McKennaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

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