Post

Plaintiff commenced the action to foreclose a mortgage upon the real property in question given to secure the payment of a promissory note executed by defendants, Beckers, to plaintiff. Hubbard was made a party defendant as having an interest in the property. Plaintiff’s rights in the action are not disputed and need not be considered. Hubbard answered by way of cross-complaint, seeking to foreclose what he claimed to be a second mortgage upon the property. This document was in form a grant, bargain, and sale deed of the premises, dated October 9, 1905, and was duly recorded, February 10, 1906. It was alleged, in an amended cross-complaint, filed before the trial, that this deed was intended as a mortgage to secure the indebtedness then (at its date) due from the Beckers to the firm of Hubbard and Carmichael Bros.; also to secure Hubbard against any liability that might.arise out of a certain bond, in the sum of five hundred dollars, given by him as security for Becker in an action about to be commenced by him against one Mrs. Schmidlin, for slander; also to secure all other indebtedness that might thereafter (after October 9, 1905), become due from the Beckers to T. B. Hubbard,…