Jones v. Gardner
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, in the Superior Court of San Diego County. McNealy, J.
1Opinion of the Court
The Coubt
1. The Court found, and the pleadings admit, that the deed to plaintiff was intended as a mortgage. It is claimed that the judgment over against the defendant was erroneous. Section 2928 of the Civil Code provides that a “ mortgage ” does not bind the mortgagor personally unless there is an express covenant therein to that effect. But here there is evidence that defendant had promised to pay the sum of $1,600, on or before the 28th day of September, 1878. The fact is admitted by the answer, and it is recited in the bond, which was executed by the plaintiff, contemporaneously with the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Fish v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Morton v. Morton Realty Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1925
- Lockhart v. J. H. McDougall Co.California Supreme Court · 1923
- Puppo v. LarosaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Fredendall v. ShraderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.