Escot

Foreclosure. Defendant Alferitz disclaimed any interest in the land. Defendant Escot, maker of the mortgage, answered and set up want of consideration for the mortgage debt, and also pleaded fraud and undue influence by plaintiffs in securing the execution of the notes and mortgage. The court gave judgment of foreclosure against Escot, from which, and from the order denying his motion for a new trial, he alone appeals. Escot alleged in his answer, and the court found, that on March 9, 1892, he and plaintiff entered into a contract by which plaintiffs, as agents of defendant, undertook tq procure title from the state to certain two thousand four hundred and one and ninety-five hundredths acres of land, situated in Merced county, for four dollars per acre; and defendant paid at the time $1,000 on account of said purchase, and later $1,000 more. It is not claimed by defendant that there was anything unconscionable or fraudulent in this contract. The evidence tends to show that the contract of the parties was changed by substituting for it a deed of the land from plaintiffs to defendant, the transfer to him of the certificates of purchase, which had been taken in plaintiffs’ names,…