TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Vallejo v. Randall

MARIANO G. VALLEJO and FRANCISCA B. VALLEJO v. ANDREW RANDALL, and others

Vallejo v. Randall, 5 Cal. 461 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1855
Judges
Terry
Citations
5 Cal. 461
Syllabus
Actions for the foreclosure of mortgages must be tried in the county in which the subject of the action, or some part thereof, is situated.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, San Francisco County. The opinion of the Court contains the facts.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Terry

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Terry, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Murray, C. J., and Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

The respondent commenced an action against the appellant in the District Court of the Twelfth District for the County of San Francisco, for the foreclosure of a mortgage on certain land situated in the County of Solano.

The appellant, Randall, filed his answer, in which he set out, amongst other matters, that the Court had no jurisdiction to try said cause,— the mortgaged premises described in the complaint being situated wholly within the County of Solano. To this portion of the answer of appellant, respondent demurred. The Court sustained the demurrer, and after hearing evidence, entered a decree for the foreclosure of the mortgage and sale of the premises.

From this judgment an appeal was taken. The eighteenth section of the “Act to regulate Proceedings in Civil Cases,” provides that actions for the foreclosure of mortgages, must be tried in the county in which the subject of the action, or some part thereof, is situated. In this case, it appearing from the complaint as well as answer of Randall, that the subject of the action was situated wholly without the County of San Francisco, the Court of its own motion should have ordered a change of venue, and the failure to do so was error.

It is ordered that the judgment be reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with instructions to the Court below, to transmit the record for trial to the District Court of the Seventh District for the County of Solano.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1859–1860: 11897–1898: 11909–1910: 21919–1920: 11929–1930: 21947–1948: 11953–1954: 11959–1960: 118592026peak 1909 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Perkins v. Sunset Tel. and Tel. Co.103 P. 190 (Cal. 1909)
  2. Simon v. City & County of San Francisco180 P.2d 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)
  3. Coakley v. Ajuria290 P. 33 (Cal. 1930)
  4. Brooks v. City of Monterey290 P. 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
  5. Watts v. White13 Cal. 321 (1859)
  6. Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen338 P.2d 743 (Wash. 1959)

Most recent

  1. Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen338 P.2d 743 (Wash. 1959)
  2. Simmer v. City & County of San Francisco254 P.2d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)
  3. Simon v. City & County of San Francisco180 P.2d 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947)
  4. Coakley v. Ajuria290 P. 33 (Cal. 1930)
  5. Brooks v. City of Monterey290 P. 540 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930)
  6. Du Val v. Boos Bros. Cafeteria Co.187 P. 767 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list