Legal Opinion

Ephraim v. Nevada & California Land & Live Stock Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 7, 1922No. 3768PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGifbert, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). It is contended that the trust deed is void, for the reason that it is an attempt by a single instrument to create both a mortgage and a deed of trust and to operate as either at the election of the grantee. That question is not open to discussion in the present controversy. That the instrument is a trust deed has been determined by the decree of a *612competent court in the cause to which the appellants’ predecessor in interest was a party. It was subsequent to that decree that the appellants took their deed, and they are estopped by the judgment in that suit.

N…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Burns v. HiattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Hall v. ArnottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Raynor v. DrewCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  4. Baker v. Fireman's Fund InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Power & Irrigation Co. of Clear Lake v. Capay Ditch Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1915

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. McDonald v. Smoke Creek Live Stock Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Cunningham v. DavidoffCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
  3. Hollings v. HollingsNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951

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

Powered by the Exa API