Le Mesnager v. Hamilton
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
De Haven, J.—
The defendants, Samuel Hamilton and Adelaide E. Hamilton, were and are husband and wife, and this is an action to foreclose a mortgage alleged to have been executed by them on January 2, *5341889, to secure a promissory note, also executed by them on the same day, for the sum of seven thousand dollars. The complaint contains a copy of the mortgage, and of the certificate of acknowledgment attached thereto. The certificate is that of a notary public, and shows upon its face that the mortgage was duly acknowledged by the defendants upon the day of its date.
The defendant, Adelaide…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pickens v. KniselyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
- Borland v. WalrathSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Johnston ex rel. Smith v. WallaceMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Meyer v. GossettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1882
- Bagley v. Administrators of McMickleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Tahoe National Bank v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- People v. GeibelCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Wheelock v. CavittTexas Supreme Court · 1898
- Newman v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
- Jones v. Citizens' State BankSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.