Legal Opinion

Bewick v. Muir

California Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1890No. 12390PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer Comity. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.

The general features of this case are the same as in No. 12437, ante, p. 368, which has just been decided. One of the defendants (Susman), who was alleged in the complaint to have some interest in or claim *374upon the property which was subject to the interest of the plaintiffs, filed an answer, in which he averred that he had a mortgage which had priority over the plaintiffs’ claims, and that he had commenced a suit to foreclose said mortgage, joining all the plaintiffs herein as defendants therein, and that said suit was then pending; and he annexed a copy of his complaint in such suit, and…

2Cited by5 opinions

  1. California Portland Cement Co. v. Wentworth Hotel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911
  2. Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angles Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1903
  3. W. P. Fuller & Co. v. RyanWashington Supreme Court · 1906
  4. Berentz v. Kern King Oil & Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
  5. California Portland Cement Co. v. Wentworth Hotel Co.California Court of Appeal · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API