Hertel v. Emireck
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage of real property, executed by the defendant, Summerland Realty Company, a corporation, to secure its note for three hundred dollars. Said defendant appeals from the judgment, which was in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The answer admitted the execution of the note and mortgage, and nonpayment of the debt. It set up affirmative defenses based upon misrepresentations alleged to have been made by the plaintiff in the negotiations leading up to the giving of the note and mortgage. The court found that no…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Coats v. CoatsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Winslow v. GohransenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Himmelman v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Herrlich v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Melde v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Kustoff v. ChaplinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941
- Strauch v. BielohCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Weaver v. GrunbaumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- South Boise Water Co. v. McDonaldIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
- Pellegrino v. Los Angeles Transit LinesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1947
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.