Legal Opinion

Baker v. Varney

California Supreme Court

Decided August 24, 1900No. Sac. No. 567PublishedCited by 17 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. R. Platnauer, J. H. McKune, and McKune & George, for Appellant.

1Opinion of the CourtMcFARLAND, J.

The plaintiff herein was appointed as a receiver in a suit brought by the intervenor for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain land in Sutter' county, and brought this action as such receiver to recover possession of certain cattle claimed by him to be the rents and profits of the mortgaged property. It is contended by. appellant that the plaintiff cannot recover in this action because his appointment as receiver was void; and, as we think that this contention must be sustained, it will not be necessary to examine any of the ether questions raised in the case.

Prior to the enactment of…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Guy v. IdeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
  2. Scott v. HotchkissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Hibernia Savings & Loan Society v. BelcherCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. First National Bank v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
  3. Mines v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Lewis v. ShawCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926
  5. Durbin v. Northwestern Scraper Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1905

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