Legal Opinion

Ferry v. Fisk

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 31, 1921No. Civ. No. 2321PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.

Appellant does not question the accuracy of the following statement of the facts, which is substantially as made by respondent: The respondent is the owner and holder of the promissory note in the principal sum of $11,580, set forth in her complaint, it having been distributed to her on January 24, 1917, in the matter of her father’s estate. At the time she became the owner thereof there was likewise distributed to her a mortgage securing said note and covering 77.6 acres of land situated in Yolo County. This mortgage lien was subject to a deed of trust executed by defendant to secure the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Tolman v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Bliss v. SneathCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Shaffer v. McCloskeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Carpentier v. BrenhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  5. Metropolis Trust & Savings Bank v. BarnetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Brown v. JensenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Keever v. Nicholas Beers Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Giandeini v. RamirezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  4. Berryman v. DoreIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
  5. First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A. v. StaufferIdaho Court of Appeals · 1986

8 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