Legal Opinion

Seid Pak Sing v. Barker

California Supreme Court

Decided October 29, 1925No. Docket No. S.F. 9935. No. Sac. 3352PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichards, J.

There are in this case two appeals, one by the plaintiffs from certain portions of the judgment, and it is taken upon the judgment-roll; the other by the defendants from the whole judgment, and is based upon the entire record. The plaintiffs’ appeal, though not first in the order of its taking, will be first considered and disposed of before passing to a determination of the larger questions embraced in the defendants’ appeal. The action as originally brought was one to establish the right of the plaintiffs as the owners and holders of a junior mortgage upon certain premises to redeem said…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Shoemaker v. AckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Teller v. Bay and River Dredging Co.California Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Cauble v. HansonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1920
  4. Thomas v. AnthonyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  5. Callahan v. LoughranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nelson v. MyersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
  2. Stub v. BelmontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Miller & Lux Inc. v. PinelliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1927
  4. Seid Pak Sing v. BarkerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
  5. Scott v. Ulta Beauty, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API