McKissick

McKissick v. Cannon

Good Law
2 Cal. Unrep. 67
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 20, 1879No. 6173California369 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

On two of the three notes mentioned in the mortgage the interest is payable annually, and if not so paid, it is to draw interest at the same rate as the principal. The mortgage contains a stipulation to the effect that if the principal or interest shall not be punctually paid when the same becomes due, as in the promissory notes mentioned, then the principal sum and interest shall be deemed and be taken to be wholly due and payable, and proceedings may be taken for the recovery thereof. This stipulation in the mortgage was printed, while the copies of the notes were in writing. If the stipulation is valid—that is, if it is not repugnant to the terms of the notes—the action was not prematurely brought, and the court erred in dismissing it, so far as it related to the foreclosure of the mortgage, and retaining it only for the purpose of the reformation of the mortgage.

Stipulations of that character are frequently found in mortgages, and they cannot be justly regarded as inconsistent with the promissory notes intended to be secured. The promissory notes thus secured may not, and it is not requisite that they should, contain all the terms of the agreement made by the *68 parties.…

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.