Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Fluming Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixteenth Judicial District. The “ Union Water Company,” plaintiff, was a corporation formed under the general law for the purpose of conducting water through certain ditches to mining districts, and the Murphy’s Flat Fluming Company, defendant, was also a corporation formed in the same manner for the purpose of constructing a flume to be used in mining operations.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixteenth Judicial District. The “ Union Water Company,” plaintiff, was a corporation formed under the general law for the purpose of conducting water through certain ditches to mining districts, and the Murphy’s Flat Fluming Company, defendant, was also a corporation formed in the same manner for the purpose of constructing a flume to be used in mining operations. March 5th, 1858, the latter company executed to the former a mortgage, by which in consideration of the sum of $10,000 expressed to have been paid by the mortgagee, it conveyed “ all and singular the right, title,…
1Opinion of the CourtCrocker, J.
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. No note or other written obligation to pay the money appears to have been executed, nor does the mortgage contain any covenant or agreement to pay the mortgage debt. The action was commenced more than two years and less than four years after the time of payment of the money specified in the mortgage, and the appellant therefore contends that the action is barred by the Statute of Limitations. It is true that in the absence of a direct agreement to pay the money specified in the mortgage, the plaintiff is confined to his remedy against the mortgaged…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Chautauque County Bank v. . RisleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. ClarkinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Bates v. Bank of the StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Mann v. Eckford's ExecutorsNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Inhabitants of Shutesbury v. Inhabitants of OxfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1819
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Railway Co. v. McCarthySupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- City of Lincoln v. Sun Vapor Street-Light Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
- Paxson v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1894
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. City of DenverCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1896
- Tibbetts v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.