Legal Opinion

Filipini v. Trobock

California Supreme Court

Decided November 2, 1901No. S.F. No. 1676PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.

This is an appeal by Mary Trobock from an order denying her motion for a new trial. The order was affirmed by Department, upon the following statement and opinion: —

“Judgment was rendered by the lower court against the appellant, Mary Trobock, and her co-defendant, Antonio Trobock, for the foreclosure of a mortgage for two thousand dollars and interest, executed to the plaintiff by the latter. Mary Trobock appeals from an order denying her motion for new trial.

“1. The main question in the case is, whether the action was barred, as against her, by the statute of limitations. The facts bearing…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Wood v. GoodfellowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Boucofski v. JacobsenUtah Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Hibernia Sav. and Loan Soc. v. FarnhamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Brandenstein v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Commercial Savings Bank v. HornbergerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  5. Gayton v. Pacific Fruit Express Co.California Court of Appeal · 1932

12 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