Brewster-Greene

Brewster-Greene v. Scott

Good Law
41 F.2d 165·1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2752
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 9, 1930No. 6093California948 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rudkin, J.

This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage on real px’operty. The complaint was in the usual form in such eases, but the breach relied on was a failure to pay taxes before delinquency, as stipulated in the mortgage. A few months after the original complaint was filed a supplemental complaint was also filed, alleging the maturity of the note and mortgage and the failure to pay the mortgage debt. (Ttterly ignoring the equity rules, the defendants filed five separate pleas, or answers, to the complaint and supplemental complaint. The first was called an answer and cross-complaint, though no affirmative relief was sought; the second, third, and fourth were cross-complaints, and the fifth was an answer to the supplemental complaint, embodying nearly everything contained in the former pleadings and adding nothing to the issues. The so-called answer and cross-eomplaint averred, in substance, that the mortgage in suit was given to secure the payment of the purchase price in part; that the executory contract, pursuant to which the deed and mortgage were executed and delivered, contained a stipulation wherein the plaintiff agreed to place the defendants in possession of the mortgaged premises…

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.