Westheimer v. Thompson
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Elmore County. Oral evidence is always admissible to vary, control, explain or contradict a receipt.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Elmore County. Oral evidence is always admissible to vary, control, explain or contradict a receipt. (See Brannon v. Mesich, 10 Cal. 108; Hawley v. Badger, 15 Cal. 45; Jackson v. Sacramento Valley B. B. Co., 38 Cal. 541; Winans v. Hassey, 48 Cal. 634.) A mortgage will not merge into the legal title on both coming into the hands of the same person, except he be the original debtor, liable for the debt secured, where it is not the intention ■of the holder to so merge, nor where it is not for the best interest of the holder that they should so merge, even though his…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, C. J.
Action to foreclose mortgage on real estate. The facts, as near as we can make them out from the record, which is very incomplete and unsatisfactory, are, in substance, as follows: On the fifteenth day of December, 1886, one Archibald D. Thompson made and executed to one John *562E. Byrne a mortgage, to secure the payment of the sum of $3,000 and interest, upon certain real estate situated in Mountain Home, (then) Alturas county, Idaho territory. Afterward, on the 34th of August, 1887, said Archibald D. Thompson made and executed to the plaintiffs, as Ferdinand Westheimer & Sons, another mortgage…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Merchants Trust Co. v. DavisIdaho Supreme Court · 1930
- Spongberg v. First National BankIdaho Supreme Court · 1909
- Glenn v. Aultman & Taylor Machinery Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Barber v. HartleyOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Toston v. Utah Mortgage Loan Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.