Opinion

Cockerell v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.

  • 42 Cal. 2d 284
  • 267 P.2d 16
  • 1954 Cal. LEXIS 172
Court
California Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 24, 1954
Status
Published
Author
Edmonds
On the bench
Carter, Edmonds, Schauer
Cited by
70 cases

“Assuming for the moment 15 that the assignment of the note, secured by the third trust deed, 16 was a valid assignment, no further assignment of the deed of 17 trust was necessary.”

How later courts described this case

  • “Assuming for the moment 15 that the assignment of the note, secured by the third trust deed, 16 was a valid assignment, no further assignment of the deed of 17 trust was necessary.”
  • “The burden of proving an 10 assignment falls upon the party asserting rights thereunder.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

EDMONDS, J.

I concur in the judgment solely upon the ground that the record does not show, as a matter of law, that the trust deed under which the appellants claim was executed by one who at that time was the owner of the property.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.