Wilson v. White
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
This was an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage made to secure the payment of a note for $250. The answer contained a general denial, and an affirmative averment that the note was without consideration. The trial court found this averment to be true, and gave judgment for the defendant; and the plaintiff appeals.
Tiie material facts shown by the evidence are as follows:—
While the property involved was held by one Duncan for the benefit of the Pioneer Bank, and was subject to a mortgage in favor of one Bradley, Duncan made a contract to sell it to the defendant (who had no notice…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Carpentier v. BrenhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
- David v. . Williamsburgh City Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Middleton v. FindlaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Garwood v. HastingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Fallon v. KehoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Kimball v. Richardson Kimball Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
- Emery v. KippCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
- Anglo-Californian Bank, Ltd. v. FieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Maskell v. HillCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
- City Bank of Portage v. PlankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.