Mascarel

Mascarel v. Raffour

Good Law
51 Cal. 242
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1876No. 4907California287 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

The action is to foreclose three mortgages, two of which are upon the same parcel of land and none other, while the third is also upon that parcel and an adjoining parcel. The decree forecloses the three mortgages upon the first parcel; but omits to foreclose the third mortgage on tho second parcel; and orders a personal judgment against the mortgagor for the deficiency, if there be one. The mortgagor appeals, and makes the point that under section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure there can be no personal judgment against the defendant for the deficiency until the mortgage security has been entirely exhausted. But by the foreclosure the mortgage is merged in the judgment, and a new action could not be maintained to foreclose the mortgage as to the omitted lot. A mortgage cannot be foreclosed by piecemeal in that way, and the legal effect of omitting from the decree of foreclosure a portion of the mortgaged premises is a waiver of the mortgage lien as to that portion. The mortgagor, therefore, cannot complain of the decree.

But the court erred in the amount awarded to the plaintiff for counsel fees under the mortgage of March 10, 1873. The proper amount was two hundred and…

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.