Legal Opinion

Stich v. Dickinson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1869PublishedCited by 18 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh District, El Dorado County. The case is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCrockett, J.

The plaintiff, Stich, claims to be the owner of a note and mortgage made by the defendant, Dickinson, to one Jordan, *610since deceased, and prays for a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The defendant, in his answer, denies that the plaintiff is the owner of the note and mortgage, or that he has any interest therein, and sets up other defenses. Goldner filed an intervention, as administrator of Jordan, in which he denies that Stich has or ever had any title to or interest in the note and mortgage, which he avers belonged to .Jordan at the time of his death, and to which the intervenor is entitled…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Horn v. Volcano Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Bowles v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Howe v. Key System Transit Co.California Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Elms v. ElmsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Potlatch Lumber Co. v. RunkelIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Dollenmayer v. PryorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API