Richardson v. Scott River W. & M. Co.
California Supreme Court
Appeal from tlie Ninth Judicial District. The mortgage referred to in the opinion was in the points material to the decision in the foEowing form: “ This indenture, made and executed this twenty-first day of December, 1855, between Wm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tlie Ninth Judicial District. The mortgage referred to in the opinion was in the points material to the decision in the foEowing form: “ This indenture, made and executed this twenty-first day of December, 1855, between Wm. P. Pool, Charles W. Tozer, George E. Terry, and John Reid, of Scott’s Bar Township, Siskiyou Country, State of California, President, Directors, and members of the Scott River Water and Mining Company, parties of the first part, and Elijah Steele * * of the second part, witnesseth, that the said parties of the first part, in consideration of * * have and by…
1Opinion of the CourtCope, C. J.
This is an action to recover a sum of money secured by a bond and mortgage, claimed to have been executed by a corporation known as the Scott River Water and Mining Company. The plaintiff alleges that the corporation, by its President and Directors, executed the bond and mortgage in question, and asks a foreclosure of the mortgage, and a sale of the mortgaged property, etc. The defendants deny that the bond and mortgage were executed by the corporation, and resist the claim of the plaintiff to the relief asked.
There is no doubt that the debt for which the bond and mortgage were given was the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Cooperatives, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 2007
- Johns, Et Ux. v. GillianSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
- S. Cal. Colony Assn. v. BustamenteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- In re St. Helen Mill Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1875
- Shackleton v. Allen Chapel African Methodist Episcopal ChurchMontana Supreme Court · 1901