Alcorn

Sacramento Bank v. Alcorn

Good Law
121 Cal. 379·1898 Cal. LEXIS 917·53 P. 813
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 2, 1898Sac. No. 332California1,546 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This action was brought to determine conflicting claims to real property.

In May, 1893, defendant and wife conveyed the property to trustees, to secure a sum of money then loaned by the bank to Alcorn, due according to the terms of a promissory note. The note by its terms became due one year from date. The deed of trust provided that if the debt was paid the trustees should reconvey to the trustors, but if default were made they were authorized to sell after certain designated notice and to convey to the purchaser. The moneys realized were to be appropriated to payment of the debt and certain charges, and the residue, if any, returned to the grantors in the deed. The interest was to be paid annually, and in case of a default in the *382 payment of interest the trustees were authorized to sell. A sale was made on the 28th day of December, 1895, and it is not claimed that the proceedings for a sale, or the deed, are deficient.

Plaintiff claims under the sale, and the questions here arise upon objections made to the introduction of the trust deed in evidence.

But two points are made by appellants, and it seems to be agreed that these questions are properly presented upon 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.