Bank of Woodland v. Stephens
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Hudson Grant, Arthur C. Huston, Harry L. Huston, North & Love joy, and H. G. W. Dinkelspiel, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
Upon a further consideration of this case we adhere to the opinion heretofore rendered in Department One. It is proper to state further that there is an allegation in the complaint that "the mortgaged premises are insufficient to pay and discharge the mortgage debt," and the court finds that this allegation is true. On the authority of Scott v. Hotchkiss, 115 Cal. 94, it is claimed that this is a sufficient statement to uphold the part of the decree continuing the receivership. An inspection of the transcript in that case shows that there was in the complaint there under consideration a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Scott v. HotchkissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by14 opinions
- A. G. Col Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. BelcherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
- Gardner v. W. M. Prindle & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1932
- Delfelder v. Teton Land & Investment Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1933
- Armbrust v. ArmbrustCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.