Legal Opinion

Bangham v. Michael

California Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1918No. Sac. No. 2729PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

VICTOR E. SHAW, J., pro tem.

This action grew out of the following facts: As commissioner appointed by the court therefor, R. E. Bangham, plaintiff herein, sold certain real estate as directed by the decree made in a suit brought by M. Michael against one J. Noble Jones, to foreclose a mortgage thereon. At this sale, made June 16, 1915, Michael, mortgagee, became the purchaser of the property. As holder of a junior lien thereon, the American National Bank was made a defendant in the foreclosure suit, and hence was a redemptioner as defined in section 701 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Early…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kofoed v. GordonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Robertson v. Van CleaveIndiana Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Wilcoxson v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Haskell v. ManloveCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Hummel v. Citizens' Building & Loan Ass'nArizona Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Parcells v. NelsonMontana Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Hutton v. ChapmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Wilde v. M. J. Murphy, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1944

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API