Boyer v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance
California Court of Appeal
The faetso are stated in the opinion of the court. A. Boyer, James P. Sweeney, and James H. Boyer, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtMcLAUGHLIN, J.
This is an action in ejectment. Judgment having passed for defendants, the plaintiff appealed from the judgment, and in his hill of exceptions specifies that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings of the court relating to the title and right of possession to the land in dispute. The facts essential to a decision are as follows:—
On September 19, 1890, one H. J. Pouts owned the land in controversy, and on said day executed and delivered to the defendant insurance company his note for three thousand dollars, secured by a mortgage upon said land. The title of Pouts passed by mesne…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Matter of the Estate Op Bernard NewManCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- People ex rel. Schwartz v. TempleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- People v. HarrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Sacramento Bank v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. PhillipsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Johns v. JohnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959