Cain

Cain v. Richmond

Good Law
126 Cal. App. 254·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 465·14 P.2d 546
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 24, 1932Docket No. 7761.California1,792 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Landis, J.

In payment of a part of the purchase price of certain real property sold by plaintiffs to defendants on December 18, 1922, defendants executed and delivered to plaintiffs their promissory note in writing in the sum of $18,000 and interest, payable five years after date, and to secure the payment of said note executed on the same date a trust deed covering the said real property. Defendants having failed to pay the note when due, the property was sold under and pursuant to the terms of said trust deed for the sum of $10,000. By this action plaintiffs seek to recover the sum of $8,751.84 representing the deficiency or the balance due on said promissory note after the sale of the property under the trust deed.

Under the claim and contention that defendants were the owners thereof, in August, 1929, plaintiffs caused to be attached certain property which will be referred to as the “Urstadt property” and thereafter, pursuant to an order of the trial court allowing it, Essie J. Urstadt and Milton A. Urstadt were allowed to intervene by filing a complaint in intervention, under which complaint interveners claimed title to the said Urstadt property and sought a decree against plaintiffs…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.