Eisele v. Kowal
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1Opinion of the Court
EUBANK, Presiding Judge.
The appellants are mortgagors, appealing from a decree of foreclosure and denial of their counterclaim seeking cancellation of the note and mortgage here in issue. Their main contention is that the mortgagees, in failing to discharge a prior encumbrance by a certain date, breached a “condition subsequent” in the mortgage, which caused it to lose all legal effect. We must determine whether the trial court was correct in holding that the mortgagees’ subsequent discharge of the prior encumbrance amounted to a “substantial compliance” sufficient to prevent nullification of…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Rosecrans v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
- Hill v. FavourArizona Supreme Court · 1938
- Marshall v. PatzmanArizona Supreme Court · 1957
- Wilson v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Harford v. National Life & Casualty Insurance Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1956
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
- Madsen v. AndersonUtah Supreme Court · 1983
- City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2008