Croghan

Croghan v. Minor

Good Law
53 Cal. 15
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1878No. 5932California334 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

There is in the record no finding of the fact alleged in the complaint, but denied in the answer, that defendant Spence “ has or claims to have some interest in or claim upon said premises, or some part thereof, as purchaser, mortgagee, judgment-creditor, pre-emption or homestead claimant, or otherwise, which interests or claims are subsequent to and subject to the lien of the plaintiff’s mortgage’’

On the contrary, the Court finds facts showing that the asserted claim of defendant Spence is not subject to the lien of plaintiff’s mortgage, and that the alleged interest of. said defendant is not derived from nor connected with the estate mortgaged, but is hostile to the claim of the mortgagor.

The object of a suit to foreclose a mortgage is to obtain the sale of the estate which the mortgagor held at the time he executed the mortgage, and the application of the proceeds of the sale to the payment of the demand for the security of which the mortgage was given.

*16 All persons who are beneficially interested, either in the estate mortgaged or the demand secured, are proper parties to the suit. Burton v. Lies, 21 Cal. 87; San Francisco v. Lawton, 13 Cal. 465 .)

This rule will…

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.