Hughes v. Davis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Ninth District, Shasta County. The plaintiff appealed. Tbe other facts are stated in tbe opinion. First — When there is no fraud or oppression on tbe part of tbe creditor, and no debt (using tbe word “ debt” in its broadest and least technical sense), there can be no mortgage.
Read the full summary
Appeal from tbe District Court of tbe Ninth District, Shasta County. The plaintiff appealed. Tbe other facts are stated in tbe opinion. First — When there is no fraud or oppression on tbe part of tbe creditor, and no debt (using tbe word “ debt” in its broadest and least technical sense), there can be no mortgage. (Hiclcox v. Loioe, 10 Cal. 206-7; Bobinson v. Gopsey, 2 Edwards, 143.) Second — Tbe papers on their face show a sale and contract of re-purchase at tbe option of tbe original vendor. That such a contract is not a mortgage; we refer to tbe following authorities: 19 "Wend. 518; 2 Edw.…
1Opinion of the CourtRhodes, C. J.
The defendant being indebted to the plaintiff and other persons in the sum of $2,100, applied to the plaintiff for the loan of that sum, and offered as security, a mortgage of the premises in controversy. The plaintiff refused to take a mortgage, because of the expenses attending a foreclosure, and the transaction was consummated in this manner: The plaintiff advanced to the defendant $1,500, which, with the debt due from the defendant to the plaintiff, amounted to $2,100. The defendant and wife executed to the plaintiff a deed of the premises, and the plaintiff and defendant executed a…
2Cited by30 opinions
- Munger v. MooreCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- McNamara v. CulverSupreme Court of Kansas · 1879
- Allen v. AllenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Brandt v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Ferguson v. BoydIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.