Bowen v. May
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourteenth District, County of Sierra. This was a bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The action was brought upon notes and a mortgage executed by both of the defendants. The mortgage is in the usual form of a joint mortgage; and, to secure the payment of three several promissory notes given for the purchase money of a mining claim, grants, bargains and sells to the plaintiff the said premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourteenth District, County of Sierra. This was a bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The action was brought upon notes and a mortgage executed by both of the defendants. The mortgage is in the usual form of a joint mortgage; and, to secure the payment of three several promissory notes given for the purchase money of a mining claim, grants, bargains and sells to the plaintiff the said premises. Personal service was had upon defendant Elliott, and upon failure to answer judgment was rendered by the Court on the application of plaintiff, ordering a sale of the mortgaged…
1Opinion of the CourtTerry, C. J.
The provisions of the thirty-second section of the Practice Act, which, in an action against two or more defendants, all of whom are not served with process, authorizes judgment to be entered to bind the joint property of all, does not apply to proceedings for the foreclosure of a mortgage on real estate.
The fact that two persons join in a mortgage of lands does not raise a presumption that the estate conveyed is joint property. Joint tenancies are not favored by our system—the statute having abrogated the common law rule of conveyances in this respect—so that in order to constitute a joint…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Slosberg v. HornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Dalton v. KeersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Southern California Edison Co., Limited v. HurleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953
- Finley v. FinleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Southern California Edison Co., Limited v. HurleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1953