Commercial Bank v. Kershner
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County. J. W. Towner, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
Action to foreclose a mortgage. Defendants had judgment on demurrer to the amended complaint without leave to further amend the complaint, from which plaintiff appeals on the judgment-roll.
The amended complaint shows: That November 15, 1890, Thomas B. Peet died, leaving the mortgaged premises to defendants, Sarah Kershner and Florence M. Ludlow (now Florence Williams), his sole surviving heirs and devisees in California. On January 3, 1891, Florence Ludlow and her husband, Frank K. Ludlow, a defendant, became indebted to plaintiff and executed to it two promissory notes—one due…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Biddel v. BrizzolaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Merced Security Savings Bank v. CasacciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hall v. ArnottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Mascarel v. RaffourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
- Ould v. StoddardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Brown v. JensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Martin v. BeckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Pacific Valley Bank v. SchwenkeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
- Gnarini v. Swiss American BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Winklemen v. SidesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.