Legal Opinion

Worth v. Worth

California Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1909No. L.A. No. 2277PublishedCited by 11 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial, in an action brought by plaintiff to foreclose the lien of a mortgage-given by defendant to plaintiff, to secure the payment of a promissory note dated February 15, 1899, for twenty-five hundred dollars, bearing interest at the rate of eight per cent per annum and payable March 1, 1902.

1. It appears from the amended complaint that this action was not commenced until shortly after the expiration of four years from the maturity of the note. A demurrer was interposed to the amended complaint based on the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Foster v. BowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Klokke v. EscaillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Peachy v. WitterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  4. Weinberger v. WeidmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. County Bank v. GoldtreeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Merrimon v. ParkeyTennessee Supreme Court · 1916
  2. University of Richmond v. StoneSupreme Court of Virginia · 1927
  3. Jensen v. LichtensteinUtah Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Galvin v. O'GormanMontana Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Fielding v. IlerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

6 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