Sentney

Sentney v. Heidingsfelder

Good Law
120 Cal. App. 499·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 22·7 P.2d 1106
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 6, 1932Docket No. 521.California1,793 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Lambert, J.

Plaintiffs and respondents C. N. Sentney and Bertha A. Sentney brought this action against the defendants C. E. Heidingsf elder and Olive Heidingsf elder, his wife, to foreclose a mortgage in the sum of $15,000, given to secure the performance of the covenants of a lease. However, the amended complaint on which the case went to trial also contained allegations regarding, and sufficient to support a judgment on a contract, to be hereinafter mentioned. The matters pleaded were set forth as one cause of action. The defendants demurred to the complaint generally and on grounds of uncertainty and also made a motion to strike it from the files. The demurrer was overruled and the motion to strike denied. Defendants then filed an answer in which they denied the contract set out in the complaint, claimed the mortgage to be void, and pleaded an agreement dated May 23, 1927, and a quitclaim deed and release of all liability under the lease. Defendants also filed a cross-complaint in which was a prayer for $30,000 damages and the cancellation of a certain promissory note in the sum of $2,500. Apparently no evidence was introduced in support of the damage item as no findings were made…

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.