McClintick

McClintick v. Frame

Good Law
1929 Cal. App. LEXIS 567·98 Cal. App. 338·276 P. 1033
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 17, 1929Docket No. 6749.California2,187 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Campbell, J.

This is an appeal on the judgment-roll, the appeal being based upon the ground that the court drew an erroneous conclusion from the findings in respect to one particular part of the judgment, appellants asserting that the court erred in failing to hold Theodosia Frame primarily obligated together with W. P. Frame and Herman F. Nicolai for the payment of a certain indebtedness. Defendant Nicolai has not appealed and the judgment is final as to him. The suit was brought to secure declaratory relief, plaintiffs seeking to have the obligations of the respective parties in reference to a certain indebtedness fixed and declared by judgment of the court.

Plaintiffs owned a tract of land upon which they executed a deed of trust to secure the payment of an indebtedness to the Heilman Commercial Trust and Savings Bank and a mortgage to secure another indebtedness to defendant Nicolai, the mortgage being subordinate to the deed of trust. Plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell the land to defendants W. P. Frame and Theodosia Frame, his wife. The first paragraph of the agreement is as follows: “This agreement made this 1st day of February, 1923, between G. W. McClintick and Catherine…

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.