Legal Opinion

White v. Costigan

California Supreme Court

Decided February 23, 1901No. S. F. No. 1663Published

APPEAL from Superior Court, Mendocino County; J. M. Mannon, Judge. Action by Frankie White against James M. Costigan. From a decree in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, C.

The suit was brought to quiet title to the lands described in the complaint. Judgment was rendered for the defendant. The appeal is from the judgment, and on the judgment-roll. Both parties deraign title from one George E. White, plaintiff’s divorced husband. White had mortgaged the lands in controversy and other lands to one Fairbanks, and afterward some of the same lands, but not the lands in controversy, to the defendant Costigan. Suit was commenced by Fairbanks, January 15, 1895, for foreclosure of his mortgages, to which Costigan was made defendant as junior mortgagee. Pending…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Bagley v. WardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Meyer v. MintonyeIllinois Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Abadie v. LoberoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Wilcoxson v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874

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

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

Powered by the Exa API