Rosenthal

Merced Bank v. Rosenthal

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 613·99 Cal. 39·33 P. 732
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 20, 1893No. 14874California3,960 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Upon due consideration of this cause, after hearing in Bank, we are satisfied with the conclusion reached and the opinion rendered in Department; and for the reasons therein given, the judgment and order appealed from are reversed and the court below is directed to enter judgment for the defendants on the findings.

The following is the decision above referred to, which was rendered in Department Two on the 28th of December, 1892: —

This action is brought to have a deed, absolute on its face, declared a mortgage,-and to obtain a foreclosure of the same. It is brought against A. Rosenthal and S. Peckerman, as copartners, doing business under the style of Rosenthal and Peckerman, and against A. Rosenthal and S. Peckerman and Betsy Rosenthal, wife of A. Rosenthal.

It is averred that on and prior to July 20, 1883, the copartnership and A. Rosenthal and S. Peckerman were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $2,000, and “being desirous of establishing a further credit with plaintiff, and of securing the payment of said moneys then due plaintiff, and of securing the payment to plaintiff of any and all other sums of money and advances that might thereafter become due to plaintiff from…

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.