Benham v. Rowe
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Yuba County. The complaint sets forth, that Field, the plaintiff, on the 26th day of September, 1850, mortgaged to Mark Brumagim and Lewis Cunningham, certain property in Marysville, called in the paper’s, “the Levee property,” to secure the payment of $2000, for which he gave his note, payable in thirty days.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, Yuba County. The complaint sets forth, that Field, the plaintiff, on the 26th day of September, 1850, mortgaged to Mark Brumagim and Lewis Cunningham, certain property in Marysville, called in the paper’s, “the Levee property,” to secure the payment of $2000, for which he gave his note, payable in thirty days. That Field mortgaged the same property and another lot, designated as the “ House lot,” on the 26th of October, 1850, to George Rowe, one of the respondents, to secure a note of $2000, payable in sixty days. And on the 1st…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydeneeldt, Justice
Where a power of sale is contained in a mortgage, and under a sale by virtue of such power, the mortgagee becomes the purchaser, the equity of redemption still attaches to the property in favour of the mortgagor.
The Court below therefore treated this case properly as one in which the plaintiff ’a right to redeem was clear.
The errors complained of arise mainly upon the charges given and refused by the Court. The first three charges asked by the plaintiffs, were properly refused. The complainant does not charge the defendant Rowe with negligence or improper conduct in leasing the mortgaged…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Frink v. RoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Markey v. LangleySupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Thornton v. IrwinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- Copsey v. Sacramento BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Curry v. KingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.