Linforth

Linforth v. White

Good Law
129 Cal. 188·1900 Cal. LEXIS 952·61 P. 910
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1900S.F. No. 1398.California766 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Respondent insists that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that there was no service of the notice of appeal.

The appeal is taken from an order made by the superior court of Mendocino county, September 21, 1897, setting aside so much of a sale under a decree of foreclosure and sale as-embraced the land included in the mortgage of Costigan and not included in the mortgage belonging to Linforth, on the ground that said sale as to such portion was grossly inadequate in price, and was made without the knowledge of Costigan or his attorneys, and without any notice to either. At the hearing of the motion in which said order was entered Costigan, the moving party, was represented by Messrs. Seawell & Pemberton and Barclay Henley as his attorneys, and Linforth, the plaintiff in said action and purchaser at the said sale, was represented by J. Q. White and George A. Sturtevant as his attorneys. Linforth as appellant, and Costigan as respondent, are the parties to this appeal, and have appeared by the same attorneys who represented them in the court below at the hearing of the motion—wherein the order appealed from was entered. The only proof of the attempted service…

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.