Legal Opinion

Hamilton v. Carpenter

California Supreme Court

Decided February 5, 1940No. L. A. 17053PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShenk, J.

The defendants appeal from a decree foreclosing a trust deed executed by them to secure their promissory note in the amount of $7,500, payable to plaintiff and representing the unpaid balance of the purchase price of certain improved real property.

There is ample evidence in the record to establish the default of the defendants in the performance of their obligations under the instruments, and the trial court accordingly so found and entered the decree of foreclosure from which this appeal is prosecuted. The defendants’ principal contention has to do with the asserted error of the trial court…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Price v. Sixth District Agricultural Assn.California Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Carpenter v. HamiltonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  3. Barthelmess v. CavalierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  4. Suisun Lumber Co. v. Fairfield School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1912
  5. Henderson v. MigliettaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Vella v. HudginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Stiebel v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Torrey Pines Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989
  4. Wouldridge v. BurnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. Bendlage v. KohlsaatCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942

10 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