Legal Opinion

Herman v. Santee

California Supreme Court

Decided August 13, 1894No. 19357PublishedCited by 42 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, and from an order granting amotion to supply proof of service of summons. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C.

This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage given to secure payment of a promissory note made by the appellant, Milton Santee. On September 8, 1892, a decree of foreclosure was entered as prayed for, reciting that the “ defendants have been duly and regularly summoned to answer unto the plaintiff’s complaint herein, and made default in that behalf, and that the default of each. defendant for not appearing and answering unto plaintiff’s complaint has been duly and regularly entered herein.” Subsequently, appellant gave notice of a motion to vacate and set aside the decree, so…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Matter of the Estate Op Bernard NewManCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Drake v. DuvenickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Reinhart v. LugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Allison v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Cahoon v. LevyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Westphal v. WestphalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Burke v. Inter-State Savings & Loan Ass'nMontana Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Bohn v. BohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Crouch v. H. L. Miller & Co.California Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Muller v. MullerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956

37 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