Linforth v. White
California Supreme Court
MOTION to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Mendocino County setting aside portion of a sale made under a decree of foreclosure. J. M. Mannon, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Respondent insists that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that there was no service of the notice of appeal.
The appeal is taken from an order made by the superior court of Mendocino county, September 21, 1897, setting aside so much of a sale under a decree of foreclosure and sale as-embraced the land included in the mortgage of Costigan and not included in the mortgage belonging to Linforth, on the ground that said sale as to such portion was grossly inadequate in price, and was made without the knowledge of Costigan or his attorneys, and without any notice…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cunningham v. WarnekeyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Moore v. BesseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- People v. Alameda Turnpike Road Co.California Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by8 opinions
- Allied Grape Growers v. Bronco Wine Co.California Court of Appeal · 1988
- Harris v. Minnesota Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
- Ayres v. LipschutzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
- Hankla v. Governing BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Townsend v. ParkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.