Legal Opinion
Kelly v. Ferbrache
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 5, 1932No. Docket No. 7406PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ATTERIDGE, J., pro tem.
This action was instituted by appellant as plaintiff in the court below to recover a deficit resultant after a sale had been made under the provisions of a deed of trust securing a promissory note. The defendants named in the complaint were J. Albert Ferbrache and the respondent Mary J. Ferbrache, joint makers of said promissory note.
The complaint was filed February 8, 1926, and summons issued the same day. Defendant Albert Ferbrache was duly served with complaint and summons within two months thereafter, and judgment was subsequently rendered against him. Respondent…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Young v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Dupuy v. ShearCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Sauer v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925
- Jones v. GunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- Bellingham Bay Lumber Co. v. Western Amusement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Brock v. FouchyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Cmty. Redevelopment Agency of L.A. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- Cook v. Justice's CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Arnold v. Newhall County Water DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Arcturus Manufacturing Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.