Whitby

Whitby v. Rowell

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 618·82 Cal. 635·23 P. 40
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 29, 1890No. 13398California359 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

Action to foreclose a mortgage. Defendant, Rowell, demurred to the complaint. The demurrer was overruled, and said defendant refusing to answer, judgment went for plaintiff. From the judgment, Rowell appeals.

The demurrer was on the general ground of a failure to state sufficient facts, and also on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It resolves itself into the point that the complaint contains no description of the land mortgaged, and does not show that it ivas situated in the county of San Bernardino. The complaint contains a copy of the mortgage, which has a full description of the mortgaged premises. Appellant’s point is, that the complaint is defective in this regard, because the copy of the mortgage is in an exhibit which is attached to and made part of the complaint. This has been held to be sufficient in a number of cases, and pointedly in Emeric v. Tams, 6 Cal. 156 ,—a case precisely similar to the case at bar. The appeal was evidently for delay.

Judgment affirmed, with two hundred dollars damages, and costs.

*636 Sharpstein, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

A petition for a hearing in Bank having been filed, the following opinion was rendered thereon on the 28th of…

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.