Bechtel v. Wier
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. E. W. Freeman, Herbert Cutler Brown, and George H. Moore, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.
Plaintiff Bechtel and one Lena B. Mat-tern each gave a mortgage to secure the debt of the latter. The mortgages were on separate pieces of property. Bechtel’s mortgage was given as additional security for the Mattern debt. The mortgage declared that it was given ‘ ‘ as security for the payment of one promissory note according to its terms,” and declared further that if Lena Mattern shall fail to pay or cause to be paid any part of the debt secured when due,, the whole debt secured shall, at the option of the mortgagee,, or assigns, become due and collectible. A foreclosure was had' of these…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- White v. CrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Nagle v. MacyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Southern Pacific Co. v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Farmers' Loan Co. v. Oregon Pacific RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Connick v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Hirshfield v. SchwartzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Wuest v. WuestCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Lesser & Son v. SeymourCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- Dimon v. DimonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1953
- Schuler-Knox Co. v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.