Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. Churchill
California Supreme Court
■The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A. Boyer, fox Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.
Action upon notes and mortgage executed to plaintiff by William H. Churchill in his lifetime. Judgment went for plaintiff. There are two appeals from the judgment—one by defendant Mary F. Churchill, administratrix, and the other by Robert P. Churchill, as intervenor. It is not contended by either appellant that the mortgage was not a perfectly valid one for the amount of money which it purports to secure; but it is contended that, for certain legal reasons, technical in their nature, respondent should be precluded from enforcing its lien for the recovery of its loan.
1. The contention of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Collins v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Monterey County v. CushingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Henry, Lee & Co. v. Cass County Mill & Elevator Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1875
- Bayly v. MueheCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Ragland v. WisrockTexas Supreme Court · 1884
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Follette v. Pacific Light & Power Corp.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Johnson v. Hayes Cal Builders, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- Stern & Goodman Investment Co. v. DanzigerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Hospital Council of Northern California v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Sanders v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.California Court of Appeal · 1975
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.