Hegel

Von Der Kuhlen v. Hegel

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 599·51 Cal. App. 416·196 P. 913
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 16, 1921Civ. No. 3475.California396 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shaw, J.

Defendant Kate Hegel appeals from a judgment foreclosing a mortgage executed by her to secure the payment of a promissory note in the sum of $12,000 and interest thereon at seven per cent per annum, payable quarterly.

Defendants’ demurrer to the original complaint was sustained, and thereupon plaintiff filed an amended complaint praying judgment against defendants “(a) for the sum of $12,000.00, together with interest thereon at the rate of seven per cent per annum from the 19th day of October, 1918; (b) for the sum of - paid for taxes from the .—- day of-, 191—followed by a demand for attorneys’ fees, costs, order of sale, etc. Upon entry of defendant’s default for failure to answer, judgment was rendered against her for the principal of the note in the sum of $12,000, and interest computed from July 19, 1918, amounting to $441, and $120.22 for taxes alleged in the body of the complaint to have been paid by plaintiff. Sec tion 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “The relief granted to the plaintiff, if there be no answer, cannot exceed that which he shall have demanded in his complaint.” (St aacke v. Bell, 125 Cal. 309 , [ 57 Pac. 1012 ].) And in Brooks v. Forington,…

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.