Curtin

Curtin v. Salmon River Hydraulic Gold Mining & Ditch Co.

Good Law
130 Cal. 345·1900 Cal. LEXIS 842·62 P. 552
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 29, 1900Sac. No. 680.California2,125 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

This action was brought for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain mining property, executed to the plaintiff’s assignor by the president and secretary of the defendant. The defendant denied its execution of the note and mortgage, and upon this issue the court found in favor of the plaintiff and rendered judgment accordingly. The defendant moved for a new trial upon the ground that the decision was not sustained by the evidence, and, this motion having been denied, has taken this appeal.

The defendant is a mining .corporation organized under the laws of this state, having a capital stock of one hundred thousand shares, and is controlled and managed by a board of five directors. The promissory note and mortgage upon which the action was brought were executed to Thomas W. Wells, the assignor of the plaintiff, July 24, 1897. Wells had previously advanced moneys to the defendant, and had taken therefor its promissory note for five thousand dollars, all of which, together with eleven hundred and twenty-five dollars of interest thereon, was then unpaid, and he had also, subsequent to the execution of said note, advanced to it the further sum of seven hundred and sixty dollars. The…

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.