Legal Opinion

Donohoe v. Mariposa Land & Mining Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 1885No. 8,263PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage upon a tract of land known as the Mariposa Estate, executed to the plaintiff on August 2,1875, to secure the payment of six promissory notes made by the defendant, the Mariposa Land and Mining Company of California.

Read the full summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to foreclose a mortgage upon a tract of land known as the Mariposa Estate, executed to the plaintiff on August 2,1875, to secure the payment of six promissory notes made by the defendant, the Mariposa Land and Mining Company of California. The defendants pleaded payment of two of the notes, and that all of the notes were executed by the defendant under a mistake of fact, and in fraud of defendant, and were without consideration. The further facts…

1Opinion of the CourtMcKinstry, J.

The court below found that each of the two actions—the one being the action instituted by Eugene Kelly, on the 3d of October, 1871, in the name of C. D. O’Sullivan, as plaintiff, against the Mariposa Company and the trustees, in which the injunction was issued; and the other brought by the Mariposa Land and Mining Company (of New York) against Kelly, the plaintiff herein, the nominal purchasers at the tax sales, John W. Brumagim and others, on the 19th day of February, 1871—was commenced and prosecuted in good faith, and that, before the time of the settlement and compromise of the 29th of…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Feeney v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Yesler v. HochstettlerWashington Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Mills Land & Water Co. v. Golden West Refining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1986
  4. Thomson v. Mortgage Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1929
  5. Culver v. GrahamWyoming Supreme Court · 1889

5 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