Legal Opinion

O'Neal v. Hart

California Supreme Court

Decided February 13, 1897No. S. F. No. 489PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. F. B. Ogden, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

The Court.

1. The mortgage which is foreclosed herein was given to secure the payment of a promissory note of the defendant, Hart, and contained a clause which provided that in a suit for its foreclosure “ a decree may be had to sell the said premises in the manner prescribed by law, and out of the money arising from such sale to retain the principal and interest, together with the costs and charges of making such sale, and of suit for foreclosure, including counsel fees, at the rato of five per cent, upon the amount which may be found due for principal and interest by the said decree.” This…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. Brooks v. ForingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Edwards v. GrandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. White v. SchaderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
  4. Jensen v. LichtensteinUtah Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Bonestell v. BowieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

4 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