Boyer

Boyer v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance

Good Law
1 Cal. App. 54·1905 Cal. App. LEXIS 107·81 P. 671
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 29, 1905No. 10.California962 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

McLAUGHLIN, J.

This is an action in ejectment. Judgment having passed for defendants, the plaintiff appealed from the judgment, and in his hill of exceptions specifies that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the findings of the court relating to the title and right of possession to the land in dispute. The facts essential to a decision are as follows:—

On September 19, 1890, one H. J. Pouts owned the land in controversy, and on said day executed and delivered to the defendant insurance company his note for three thousand dollars, secured by a mortgage upon said land. The title of Pouts passed by mesne conveyances to one Hellwegan, subject to the mortgage, and plaintiff claims title under a deed from Hellwegan dated June 30, 1900.

On July 13, 1894, an action to foreclose said mortgage was commenced, Hellwegan and his wife being made parties defendant. Summons was returned October 24, 1894, the return showing personal service on all the defendants except Hellwegan. On the same day an affidavit for publication of summons was filed, and the order for publication issued. Every step in the service of summons by publication is admitted to be correct, except that it is claimed that such order for…

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.