Gutzeit

Gutzeit v. Pennie

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 920·98 Cal. 327·33 P. 199
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 20, 189315004California565 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

The only question in the case at bar requiring special notice is this: “Is a judgment foreclosing a mortgage valid as against grantees of the mortgagor and subsequent encumbrancers, although a representative of the deceased *328 mortgagor is not before the court at the time of the judgment —the plaintiff waiving all recourse against any of the property of the estate except the mortgaged premises? •

The facts necessary to be stated are these: On the 25th of July, 1884, W. C. Palmer, since deceased, executed the note and mortgage sued on to one Nils Sjoholm, and immediately thereafter conveyed the mortgaged premises, and all his right, title, and interest therein to his wife, Mattie A. Palmer, who was made a defendant in this action. Sjoholm assigned the note and mortgage to plaintiff. Bozo Badovich and Henry Plageman claim an interest in the mortgaged premises under said Mattie A. Palmer; and .they were also made defendants and appeared and defended. The mortgagor, W. C. Palmer, died before the commencement of the suit, and one Pennie had been appointed and was acting as the administrator of said Palmer, deceased. Pennie, as such administrator, was made a party defendant; but…

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.