Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Noonan

California Supreme Court

Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Noonan

2 Cal. Unrep. 162

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1883

DocketNo. 7733

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Cal. Unrep. 162 (Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Noonan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Noonan, 2 Cal. Unrep. 162 (Cal. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

By the COURT.

We do not perceive in this case any just cause of complaint on the part of the defendant Matthew Nunan. The evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to sustain the finding of the court below to the effect that the leasehold interest, with the appurtenances, purchased from the estate of Armstrong, and taken in the name of said Matthew Nunan, was in fact the property of the defendant Thomas Noonan. The objection that there was no such issue between the defendants Thomas and Matthew is not well taken. The latter expressly alleged that he was the owner of the whole of the leasehold and appurtenances (including the purchase from the estate of Armstrong) on which issue was taken by the defendant Thomas. Plaving raised that issue, he cannot complain that the court determined it. The order in which the court below directed the respective interests in the property embraced in the plaintiff’s mortgage to be sold, and the application of the proceeds, are just as they should be.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the COURT.

We do not perceive in this case any just cause of complaint on the part of the defendant Matthew Nunan. The evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to sustain the finding of the court below to the effect that the leasehold interest, with the appurtenances, purchased from the estate of Armstrong, and taken in the name of said Matthew Nunan, was in fact the property of the defendant Thomas Noonan. The objection that there was no such issue between the defendants Thomas and Matthew is not well taken. The latter expressly alleged that he was the owner of the whole of the leasehold and appurtenances (including the purchase from the estate of Armstrong) on which issue was taken by the defendant Thomas. Plaving raised that issue, he cannot complain that the court determined it. The order in which the court below directed the respective interests in the property embraced in the plaintiff’s mortgage to be sold, and the application of the proceeds, are just as they should be.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Cal. Unrep. 162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odd-fellows-savings-bank-v-noonan-cal-1883.