Harralson

Harralson v. Barrett

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 724·99 Cal. 607·34 P. 342
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 6, 1893No. 19137California1,724 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Paterson, J.

The mortgage upon which this action was brought provides that in case-of foreclosure the mortgagee may include therein all payments made by the mortgagee “ for taxes on said premises, and the taxes of this mortgage or the money hereby secured.”

It is claimed by appellant that this provision of the mortgage is void, and that the court below erred in allowing interest on the note for the payment of which the mortgage was given as security, and this proposition we think must be sustained. Section 5, article XIII., of our constitution provides that “ every contract hereafter- made, by which a debtor is obligated to pay any tax or assessment on money loaned, or on any mortgage, deed of trust, or other lien, shall, as to any interest specified therein, and as to such tax or assessment, be null and void.” To hold that the clause of the mortgage quoted above is valid would defeat the purposes of this provision. In Hewitt v. Dean, 91 Cal. 11 , Mr. Justice Harrison has clearly set forth the purposes of this provision of the constitution and the circumstances which led to its adoption. The end it attempts to accomplish is “that a portion of the taxes might be collected from the mortgagee,…

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.