Legal Opinion

Fresno Investment Co. v. Russell

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 2, 1921No. Civ. No. 3913PublishedCited by 3 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.

This is an action brought to foreclose a mortgage; the plaintiff had judgment and the defendant appealed. The plaintiff’s complaint is in the ordinary form to foreclose a mortgage. The note and mortgage therein set forth are the note for $198.93 and the mortgage securing the same which are referred to in the opinion this day filed, Russell v. Penniston et al., ante, p. 492 [203 Pac. 813]. In his answer the defendant Russell set forth certain denials. Then, as his first affirmative defense, he alleged, in slightly different language and in a consolidated form, the allegations set forth in the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Felch v. BeaudryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
  2. Smith v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Martin v. SplivaloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Vance v. OlingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Montgomery v. HarringtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. California Trust Co. v. GustasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Brainard v. WhitmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. California Trust Co. v. GustasonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API