Hubbard

Hubbard v. University Bank of Los Angeles

Good Law
125 Cal. 684·1899 Cal. LEXIS 925·58 P. 297
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 7, 1899L. A. No. 485California481 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

The action was brought upon a promissory note secured by mortgage. The University Bank, as maker, executed both the note and mortgage to the plaintiff as payee and mortgagee. Other of the defendants indorsed the note at the time it was made and before its delivery as follows: “Demand of payment, notice of dishonor, protest, and notice of protest hereby waived.” The mortgage provided for a reasonable attorney’s fee to be fixed by the court, and declared that the fee fixed should be deemed a lien upon the mortgaged premises secured by the mortgage. The complaint was verified. It pleaded that a thousand dollars was a reasonable sum to be allowed as attorney’s fees. The only issue upon this point was a denial that such an amount was a reasonable amount. The foreclosure was decreed, the property ordered sold, and a judgment for any deficiency docketed against the appellants, the makers and indorsers of the note. The indorsers contend that they were improperly joined as codefendants in the action. They were properly joined. (Civ. Code, sec. 2117; Code Civ. *686 Proc., sec. 383; 3 Randolph on Commercial Paper, sec. 1660; Wiltsie on Mortgage Foreclosure, sec. 208.)

It is next contended…

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.