Moore

Moore v. Reynolds

Good Law
1 Cal. 351
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 15, 1850California248 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Bennett, J.

By the Court,

The suit was brought to foreclose a mortgage. The bill alleges an indebtedness from the defendants to the plaintiff, to secure which the mortgage is claimed to have been given. The answer admits that the plaintiff held the notes of the defendants for the amount charged in the complaint to be due, but states that the notes were delivered up to be can-celled, at the time the mortgage was given, with an understanding that the mortgagee was to look only to the mortgaged premises, and waive all claim upon the personal responsibility of the defendants. There seems to have been no evidence given— none is returned. The judgment of the district court was, that the mortgaged premises be sold ; but the court refused to gire judgment for execution against the defendants, in case the *353 mortgaged premises should not sell for sufficient to pay the mortgage debt.

We think a new trial should be ordered, for the purpose of ascertaining, 1st. Whether the defendants were indebted to the plaintiff at the time of giving the mortgage, and if so, in what amount; and 2d. Whether, if any indebtedness existed, it was agreed, at the time of giving the mortgage, that the plaintiff should…

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.