Hoppe

Hoppe v. Hoppe

Good Law
104 Cal. 94·1894 Cal. LEXIS 861·37 P. 894
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 1894No. 18225California1,570 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Harrison, J.

The first of these actions, Herman W. Hoppe et al. v. Julia Hoppe and W. A. Fountain, was to *98 obtain a partition between the plaintiffs and Julia Hoppe of the lands described in the complaint, Fountain being a party defendant because he claimed to be a .mortgagee of the whole of the premises under a mortgage executed by the defendant, Julia Hoppe.

The second of the actions was afterwards brought by Fountain against Julia Hoppe to foreclose said mortgage, and the plaintiffs in the first action intervened in the' second, and, by order of the court, the two actions were consolidated.

Fountain demurred to the complaint in partition, and also to the complaint in intervention, and to the answer of Julia Hoppe in the foreclosure case, and these demurrers were each sustained, and judgment dismissing the action for partition and tbe complaint in intervention and foreclosing the mortgage was entered. The inter-venors and Julia Hoppe separately appeal from the judgment upon the judgment-roll, and a bill of exceptions setting out the order consolidating the actions and exceptions to the rulings upon demurrer. The facts set out in the several pleadings demurred to are substantially 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.