Thomson

Thomson v. Bettens

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 642·94 Cal. 82·29 P. 336
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 26, 1892No. 14562California1,030 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

The plaintiff, under the name of Eva R. Casady, before she became by marriage Mrs. Thomson, sold a piece of land to Philip A. Bettens, Sen., gnd took his promissory note for three thousand two hundred dollars, payable at a future date, with interest, and secured to be paid by a mortgage upon the land transferred by deed to Bettens. Bettens transferred it by deed to E. S. Babcock.

The note remaining unpaid when due, Mrs. Thomson endeavored to foreclose her mortgage, and to obtain a deficiency judgment for any balance that the property might not bring at sheriff’s sale against Bettens and Babcock.

The ground upon which it is sought to hold Babcock for a deficiency judgment is, as set out in the complaint, that at the date of the execution of the note and mortgage by Bettens, and of the date of the transfer of the property by deed from Bettens to Babcock, the latter “assumed and agreed with said Bettens to fully pay and discharge at maturity the promissory note and mortgage set forth herein, and all the debts and obligations evidenced thereby.”

*84 The court below found that no such assumption or agreement was made by Babcock, and thereupon refused to render any deficiency…

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.