Heim

Heim v. Butin

Good Law
1895 Cal. LEXIS 1203·5 Cal. Unrep. 19·40 P. 39
Supreme Court of CaliforniaApril 4, 1895No. 15,798California2,481 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Belcher, J.

The plaintiffs brought this action to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the enforcement of a deficiency judgment entered against them in a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The facts stated in the complaint are in substance as follows: On or about December 30, 1887, the plaintiffs, Ella M. Heim and Julius F. H. Heim, her husband, executed to the defendant their promissory note, bearing interest at the rate of six per cent per annum, payable monthly in advance, and, if not so paid, to become immediately due, at the option of the holder thereof. At the same time, to secure payment of the note, they executed to the defendant a mortgage upon certain real property in Sonoma county. Subsequently they conveyed the mortgaged property to other parties, upon the express condition that the grantees should assume the payment of the said note and mortgage. Thereafter, about September 1, 1891, the grantees having failed to pay the interest on the note, “and the said defendant herein having elected' and declared said note to be due and payable, defendant herein, being requested, by plaintiff Ella M. Heim to commence proceedings for the foreclosure of said mortgage, did agree with her that he…

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.