Essey

Essey v. Phillips

Good Law
136 Cal. App. 3·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 28·28 P.2d 38
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 18, 1933Docket No. 7919.California829 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Houser, J.

The pertinent facts adduced by the evidence introduced on the trial of the action in the trial court appear to be as follows:

One Herman was the owner of certain real property subject to the lien of a mortgage thereon in the sum of $11,000, which real property he sold to Maud P. Phillips, appellant herein, for the sum of $18,000;—in payment of which Mrs. Phillips gave to Herman $3,000 in cash, a promissory note executed by her in favor of Herman for the sum of $4,000 secured by a deed of trust (or second lien) on the property; and assumed the existing indebtedness of $11,000 thereon. Thereafter Mrs. Phillips sold the property to Babdaty, who assumed not only the payment of the original indebtedness of $11,000 against the property, but as well the payment of the balance then due on the $4,000 promissory note secured by the deed of trust. After making several payments on account of the $4,000 promissory note, Babdaty defaulted. Thereupon in due course a “foreclosure” of the deed of trust was had, which resulted in the sale of the property for the sum of $1,000, which sum, after deducting therefrom the expenses incident to the sale, was credited as a payment on the $4,000 promissory…

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.