Legal Opinion
Essey v. Phillips
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 18, 1933No. Docket No. 7919PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHouser, J.
The pertinent facts adduced by the evidence introduced on the trial of the action in the trial court appear to be as follows:
One Herman was the owner of certain real property subject to the lien of a mortgage thereon in the sum of $11,000, which real property he sold to Maud P. Phillips, appellant herein, for the sum of $18,000;—in payment of which Mrs. Phillips gave to Herman $3,000 in cash, a promissory note executed by her in favor of Herman for the sum of $4,000 secured by a deed of trust (or second lien) on the property; and assumed the existing indebtedness of $11,000 thereon.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tupman v. HaberkernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Williams v. NaftzgerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Roberts v. FitzallenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Robson v. O'TooleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Williams v. ColemanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bank of America National Trust and Savings Ass'n v. DennisonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Birkhofer v. KrummCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Magnolia Park National Bank v. Banks, Huntley & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935