Legal Opinion

Tetenman v. Epstein

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 25, 1924No. Civ. No. 3936PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCraig, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the interveners, against the defendants decreeing that interveners were the owners and entitled to- possession of certain lots in Orange County, and that a deed -thereof, executed by interveners, constituted- a mortgage to secure payment to Epstein of a promissory note and taxes, -aggregating $461.17.

Plaintiff instituted an action praying specific performance of a contract in the form of an option given by Epstein to plaintiff upon the property in suit on January 5, 1921. Defendant Epstein answered, denying the allegations of the complaint, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Henley v. HotalingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Mahoney v. BostwickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Hannah v. SteinmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  4. Hochstein v. BerghauserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Holmes v. WarrenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. O'Connor v. Old Republic Surety Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996
  2. Clinton v. Utah Construction Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1925
  3. Wright v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  4. Land Grantors v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2008
  5. Beeler v. American Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1944

3 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