Legal Opinion

Loring v. Stuart

California Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1889No. 12881PublishedCited by 13 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Oourt of Placer County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Belcher, C. C.

—Action to foreclose a mortgage. Defense that the defendant was a married woman when she executed the mortgage, and that the mortgaged property was community property, and the mortgage therefore void.

The court found that at the date of the mortgage, and for more than ten years prior thereto, defendant was the wife of one Robert Stuart, but that she and her husband had lived separate and apart from each other for nearly *201two years, and that the mortgaged premises were the earnings of defendant while so living separate from her husband, and were her separate property. Judgment was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Schuyler v. BroughtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Kiler v. KimbalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  3. People ex rel. Dickenson v. BanvardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  4. Sanchez v. NearyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Daley v. RussCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Jackson v. TorrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Makeig v. United Security Bank & Trust Co.California Court of Appeal · 1931
  4. Marriage of DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Bronzan v. DrobazCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892

8 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