Legal Opinion

Kerrigan v. Maloof

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 26, 1950No. Civ. 14217PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPeters, P. J.

This is an action brought under section 785 of the Code of Civil Procedure by Kerrigan, referee in partition, against Zerefa Maloof, a defaulting bidder, to recover the difference between the sale price as bid by Maloof and confirmed by the court, and the price obtained on a second partition sale. Maloof cross-complained for $8,000, the amount of her deposit. At the close of the trial before a jury the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Kerrigan on all issues, and judgment was entered accordingly. Thereafter, on motion of Maloof, a new trial was granted “on insufficiency of evidence…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Sutphin v. SpeikCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Crew v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Estate of ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  4. Hatch v. Security-First National BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Fay v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Roseleaf Corp. v. ChierighinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Katz v. HaskellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
  3. Goldsworthy v. DobbinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  4. Syrek v. GouldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
  5. Union Bank v. AndersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

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

Powered by the Exa API