Legal Opinion
Bayer v. Hoagland
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 12, 1928No. Docket No. 3641PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
TUTTLE, J., pro tem.
This is an action brought to foreclose a deed of trust. The trial court refused to permit plaintiff to introduce any evidence, upon the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action. Plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend his complaint, but he did not do so, and judgment was entered for defendant. Prom this judgment the appeal is taken.
The complaint alleges the execution of a promissory note for $4,000, and a deed of trust for the payment of the same (a copy of each of said instruments is attached to the complaint) ; that plaintiffs had expended the sum of…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Savings & Loan Society v. BurnettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Cox v. DelmasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Grant v. BurrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Sacramento Bank v. AlcornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Bell Silver & Copper Mining Co. v. First National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bank of Italy National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. BentleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Little v. CFS Service Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1987
- Long v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
- Wasco Creamery & Construction Co. v. CoffeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Bayer v. BarrettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.