Nolan v. Nolan
California Supreme Court
CROSS-APPEALS from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County. J. Q. White, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
In 1891 plaintiff was the owner of a parcel of land in Mendocino County, which, for brevity, may be called the “Nolan place.” In that year he sold this land to his son, Arthur M. Nolan, defendant, taking in payment the son’s unsecured promissory note for the purchase price,, payable fifteen years after date and bearing interest at the rate of two and one-half per cent per annum. The defendant Arthur also purchased an adjoining tract of land, the “Kennedy place.” Thereafter he married. In 1901, subsequent to his marriage, he executed a mortgage to defendant Cathrin Morgan to secure the payment…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Brink v. . Hanover Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Kaltschmidt v. WeberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Alexander v. Central Lumber & Mill Co.California Supreme Court · 1894
- Ely v. WilcoxWisconsin Supreme Court · 1866
- McArthur v. MartinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1876
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- People v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Zelayeta v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1951
- Risley v. LenwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. California Electric Works, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1938
- People v. BradleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.