Legal Opinion

Placerville Gold Mining Co. v. Beal

California Supreme Court

Decided November 25, 1914No. Sac. No. 2114PublishedCited by 2 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Gavin McNab, George W. Mordecai, and Clarence Coonan, for Appellants.

1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment foreclosing a mortgage. The mortgage was executed by defendant C. N. Beal to the El Dorado Water and Deep Gravel Mining Company (a corporation), hereinafter designated the El Dorado Company, to secure the payment of three notes in . the sums of forty thousand dollars, forty thousand dollars, and forty-two thousand five hundred dollars, respectively. The mortgagee transferred all of its interest in the notes and mortgage to the plaintiff. Beal conveyed the mortgaged property to defendant Sierra Water Supply Company, hereinafter designated the Sierra Company,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Power v. FairbanksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
  2. Lipman v. Jackson Architectural Iron WorksNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. Riverside Heights Water Co. v. Riverside Tr. Co.California Supreme Court · 1906

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Servais v. KleinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  2. Meisner v. McIntoshCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API