Bowman

This appeal was considered and decided by this court on March 8, 1923 (40 Cal. App. Dec. 606). In due time after the handing down of the decision a petition for a rehearing was presented and the same granted. The ground upon which the rehearing was asked was that this court misinterpreted the evidence and the legal effect thereof. The rehearing was granted for the purpose of further considering whether the evidence sufficiently showed that a gift of the money with which the plaintiff made the purported purchase of the mortgage, to foreclose which was and is the purpose of this suit, had been made to the plaintiff by her husband, one of the mortgagors.

The former opinion contained the following statement of the case which, with the elimination therefrom of an inaccuracy as to the manner in which the plaintiff’s husband deposited in the bank certain money which he had received in the form of a draft on a Chicago bank, we hereby adopt as a part of the present opinion:

“This action was for the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage given to secure the payment of a promissory note for the sum of $2,800, executed and delivered by the defendants to the California National Bank of…