Newhall v. Sherman, Clay & Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. S. P. Hall, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
GRAY, C.
The appellant brought suit against A. T. Hatch and others on the third day of February, 1897, to foreclose a deed intended as a mortgage, and joined the respondent as a defendant, because, as stated in the complaint, “The said Sherman, Clay & Co. claim some interest or lien upon the lands and premises hereinbefore described; but that said claim is subsequent to and subordinate to the mortgage aforesaid.” Respondent demurred on the grounds, among others, that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, and that the cause of action therein stated was barred by the provisions of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Lord v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Booth v. HoskinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Wood v. GoodfellowCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Heinlin v. CastroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Wells v. HarterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Newhall v. HatchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Nicorelli v. LópezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1917
- Beal v. United Properties Co.California Court of Appeal · 1920
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. Richardson Bldg. & Eng'g Co.California Supreme Court · 1930
- Sanford v. BerginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.