Joost

Bradford Investment Co. v. Joost

Good Law
117 Cal. 204·1897 Cal. LEXIS 639·48 P. 1083
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 29, 1897S. F. No. 507California2,172 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

This is an action to foreclose fifty bonds of a railway company, of the par value of one thousand dollars each, exclusive of coupons, and to have the proceeds, after judicial sale, applied to the payment of a certain promissory note made to plaintiff by Behrend Joost, the appealing defendant, for twenty-five thousand dollars. An agreement was made by defendant Joost that the bonds might be sold for payment of the note, and plaintiff’s right to a judicial foreclosure is not denied, but the right to a personal judgment against defendant for a deficiency, if any there be, is questioned.

Upon filing the answer, plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the answer denied none of the material allegations of the complaint. The court granted the motion, and ordered judgment in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, including a deficiency judgment, to which order defendant excepted, and this appeal is from the judgment against this defendant. The other defendants do not appeal. The pleadings are verified.

The answer did not deny the allegations of the complaint, which fully and clearly set forth a good cause of action on foreclosure, but the answer avers:…

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.