Moore

Moore v. Russell

Good Law
133 Cal. 297·1901 Cal. LEXIS 906·65 P. 624
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 3, 1901L.A. No. 1033.California1,632 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFARLAND, J.

This is an appeal by defendant Zadock H. Russell, administrator, from a judgment rendered in plaintiff’s favor upon a certain note and mortgage for eight hundred dollars and interest.

No defense is made on the real merits of the case,—that is, it is not pretended that the mortgage was not given to secure a just debt. The attacks on the judgment are based on certain alleged irregularities and failures to comply with statutory provisions; and it may be said that these attacks seem to have been invited by a spirit of carelessness, which accompanied most of respondent’s acts in the premises, from and including the drafting of the mortgage to the entry of the judgment. We think, however, that none of appellant’s positions are really tenable, except as to the form of a certain part of the judgment.

On November 18, 1898, the note and mortgage in question were made and executed to plaintiff by William Russell, since deceased, and his wife, Ruth M. Russell. The principal of the note was eight hundred dollars, payable seventeen months after date, with interest at eleven per cent per annum, payable annually. There was a provision in the note that if any interest should not be paid' when…

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.