Legal Opinion

Ephraim v. Pacific Bank

California Supreme Court

Decided September 1, 1900No. S.F. No. 2201PublishedCited by 28 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.

In an action pending in the superior court of Madera county, wherein the defendants herein were plain tiffs and the Madera Fruit and Land Company et al. were defendants, the plaintiff herein, at the instance of the plaintiffs in that action, was appointed as receiver of certain lands and premises described in the complaint in said action, on February 1, 1894, and thereupon entered upon his duties as such receiver. Prior to the commencement of this action the California Savings and Loan Society had commenced an action to foreclose a mortgage held by it upon the property, and on November 26,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Highley v. DeaneIllinois Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Tome v. KingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1885
  3. Howe & Co. v. JonesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
  4. Pacific Bank v. Madera Fruit & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Myres v. FrankenthalAppellate Court of Illinois · 1894

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

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Hawes v. First Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
  2. Frick v. FritzSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
  3. City of Chula Vista v. GutierrezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. Baldwin v. BaldwinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
  5. Central Trust & Savings Co. v. Chester County Electric Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1911

23 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