Emmal v. Webb
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Tenth* Judicial District, Sutter County The plaintiff had judgment as prayed, and defendant William S. Webb appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sanderson, J. :
This is an action upon a promissory note and mortgage, both of which were executed by the defendants William S. Webb and Mary L. Webb, in June, 1861. The other defendants are alleged to have acquired some interest in the mortgaged premises subsequent to the execution and recording of the mortgage. The complaint, as originally filed, is in the usual form in such eases, and closes with a prayer that the amount due upon the note be ascertained, that the mort*199gaged premises be sold to satisfy the same, and that after the sale, if any portion of the amount due be found…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Tewksbury v. MagraffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Touchard v. CrowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Griffin v. SheffieldMississippi Supreme Court · 1860
- Ingoldsby v. JuanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
- Smith v. DallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Bull v. BrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- B. & W. Engineering Co. v. BeamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Oneto v. RestanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Rossini v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
- Barry v. BeamerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1908
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.