Klokke v. Escailler
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. M. T. Allen, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
Foreclosure of a mortgage on real estate. The complaint is verified. Plaintiff had judgment, from which defendant, Catharine S. Escailler,appeals on the judgment-roll alone. Appellant objects to the judgment upon two grounds: 1. That it was error to allow attorney’s fees; and 2. That the count erred in failing to find upon the issues raised hy her answer.
1. The mortgage was given to secure the payment of a promissory note. Upon the subject of attorney’s fees it contained the following provision: Upon default ‘The mortgagee may foreclose this mortgage, and may include in said'…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Himmelman v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Curtiss v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Prescott v. GradyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Irvine v. PerryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by20 opinions
- Wienke v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
- Roberts v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Jensen v. LichtensteinUtah Supreme Court · 1915
- Huntington v. VavraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Loewenthal v. CoonanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.