Legal Opinion

Warner Bros. Co. v. Freud

California Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1903No. S.F. No. 2248PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

HAYNES, C.

Appeal by the defendants from the judgment upon the judgment-roll.

In 1882, Morris Freud, being then seised of certain real estate in the city of San Francisco, executed a mortgage thereon to the German Savings and Loan Society, to secure the payment o£ his promissory note for the sum of twelve thousand five hundred dollars. In January, 1893, he died leaving a will, whereby he devised the said land to his widow, the defendant, Tiny Freud, for life, with remainder in fee in equal shares to his five children, the defendants Rosa Vogelsdorf, Hannah Freud, Emily Eliaser, Jacob R. Freud,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. McMillan v. RichardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
  2. Lord v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  3. Goodenow v. EwerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Warner Bros. v. FreudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Calkins v. SteinbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Petersen v. RidenourCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  2. Baldwin v. McDonaldWyoming Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Harold L. Ward v. Union Bond & Trust Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1957
  4. Jones v. Sacramento Sav. & Loan Assn.California Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. McNutt v. Nuevo Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1914

7 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