Foerst

Foerst v. Masonic Hall Ass'n of South San Francisco

Good Law
1893 Cal. LEXIS 998·3 Cal. Unrep. 720·31 P. 903
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 5, 1893No. 14,184California2,663 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Temple, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage, in which the plaintiff had judgment, and the defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order refusing a new trial.

*722 A preliminary objection is made to the statement, on the ground that it was not served in time. The judge made an order extending the time thirty days, in which “to serve notice of intention to move for a new trial, and the proposed bill of exceptions.” Within that time the notice of intention was duly served and filed, and within ten days thereafter another order was made, extending the time to prepare and serve a bill of exceptions and statement of the case thirty days, in addition to the time allowed by law. The statement was prepared and served within the period of the extension, and was therefore in time.

Among other necessary allegations the complaint contains the averment, that on the twenty-eighth day of November, 1888, defendant executed to plaintiff its note for $7,000, payable four years from date, with interest at the rate of seven per cent per year, payable quarterly, which note further provided “that if default is made in the payment of the interest, as it becomes due, the same shall be added to,…

Concurring Opinion

Haven, J.

I concur in the judgment. I think the evidence sufficient to support finding No. 1; but, in respect to other questions discussed, I concur in the foregoing opinion.

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.