Parry

Parry v. Kelley

Good Law
1877 Cal. LEXIS 112·52 Cal. 334
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1877No. 5489California616 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

It does not appear that there is an administration on the estate, or that there ever will be, or that there are any debts. The Court was not called on to decide whether it would enforce the mortgage against an administrator. A decree for plaintiff would not bind an administrator if one should hereafter seek to sell the property for debts. As the matter appears of record, the plaintiff can defeat the mortgage, and rest on her title as an heir, and never administer. Judgments rendered against a person in one capacity will not estop him when he sues in another *335 capacity. QJRobinsonis Case, 5 Esp. 32; Dutchess Kingston's Case, Smith’s Leading Cases, Yol. 2; Com. Dig. Estop. C.)

The wife, at the death of the husband, inherited one-third of the property. This after-acquired title feeds the mortgage, and is subject to it, and we should have had a decree for that much of the property, at least. (Civil Code, sec. 2930; Clark v. Baker, 14 Cal. 630 .)

J. Clark, for the Respondent.

This land being community property, it could not be incumbered by a mortgage executed by the wife alone; for by sec. 167, Civil Code, it is enacted that “ the property of the community is not liable for the…

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.