Blaisdell

Blaisdell v. McDowell

Good Law
1891 Cal. LEXIS 1083·91 Cal. 285·27 P. 656
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 19, 1891No. 14344California737 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

The main question in this case — and the only one requiring notice — is, whether a certain mortgage of hotel furniture, executed by George W. Butterfield and William P. Baker to Bryant Howard, is valid under section 2955 of the Civil Code.

The facts in the case are these: Butterfield and Baker, being desirous of purchasing about fifteen hundred dollars’ worth of furniture for the Arlington Hotel, in San Diego, made arrangements with Howard to advance the money with which to buy the furniture, agreeing to give him a mortgage on the same as security. It was specially understood between them that the money to be advanced by Howard was to be used by Butterfield and Baker in purchasing said furniture. For this purpose, Howard deposited fifteen hundred dollars in bank to their credit, and they paid for the furniture by drawing checks against said deposit. When the furniture was in the hotel they gave the mortgage to Howard, the mortgage being in form as provided by the code, and duly recorded.

Said section 2955 of the Civil Code provides that “mortgages may be made upon: .... 8. Upholstery and furniture used in hotels, lodging or boarding houses, when mortgaged to secure 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.