Legal Opinion

Security Commercial & Savings Bank v. Seitz

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 24, 1919No. Civ. No. 3037PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtNourse, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of a promissory note for ten thousand dollars executed by the' defendants, A. F. Mack and Wm. Seitz, Jr., and to enforce the payment of a written guaranty for the payment of said note subsequently executed by the defendant, Wm. Seitz, Sr. The note was executed and delivered to the Blochman Banking Company, a eo partnership consisting of L. A. Blochman and J. A. Heap. This bank was subsequently incorporated under the name of Blochman Commercial & Savings Bank, and thereafter the name was changed by a decree of court to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hines v. BrodeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Truett v. OnderdonkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Del Campo v. CamarilloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Montgomery v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Squire's Department Store, Inc. v. DudumCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  2. Johnson v. EhrgottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Newcomb v. Title Guarante & Trust CompanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. Reilly v. RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
  5. Schafer v. Wholesale Frozen Foods, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1957

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