Legal Opinion
Wilmans v. Weissman
California Court of Appeal
Decided May 2, 1940No. Civ. No. 11186 First Appellate District, Division TwoPublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSturtevant, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover on a promissory note. To her third amended complaint the defendants interposed a demurrer. The demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff has appealed.
The payment of the note sued upon was formerly secured by a second deed of trust. But the first deed of trust was foreclosed and at the sale the property was sold for a sum less than the amount of the first obligation. It will not be necessary to again refer to the second deed of trust.
On April 20, 1930, the defendants executed their promissory…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Lady Washington Consolidated Co. v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- In Re the Estate of ThomsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Ayers v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Jordan v. ScottCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Thompson v. DoaksumCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Scafidi v. Western Loan & Building Co.California Court of Appeal · 1946
- Charpentier v. WelchIdaho Supreme Court · 1953
- Glashoff v. GlashoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Anglo California National Bank v. Far West Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- Smith v. RasquiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.