Lord v. Morris
California Supreme Court
‘Appeal from the Thirteenth District. The indorsement on the note secured by the first mortgage was as follows: “ For value received, I hereby renew, revive and agree to pay the within note and debt. “ May 11th, 1861. [Signed] Merritt Goodman, B. F. Morris.” The defendants made no defense. The other material facts appear in the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtField, C. J.
Baldwin, J. and Cope, J. concurring.
The questions presented by the record for determination are:— first, whether, when an action upon-a promissory note, secured by a mortgage of the same date upon real property, is barred by the Statute of Limitations, the mortgagee has any remedy upon the mortgage; and second, whether a party having a subsequent mortgage upon the same premises, executed after the statute has run against the note, can interpose the plea of the statute in a suit to foreclose the first mortgage, and thus secure a priority of lien for *485his subsequent mortgage. The facts of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McMillan v. RichardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1858
- Pearis v. CovillaudCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by79 opinions
- Schuster v. CommissionerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1962
- Schmucker v. SibertSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Goldfrank, Frank & Co. v. YoungTexas Supreme Court · 1885
- Grattan v. WigginsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Jefferson v. J. E. French Co.California Supreme Court · 1960
74 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.