TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Coster v. Schneider

COSTER v. BROWN — SCHNEIDER, Intervenor

Coster v. Schneider, 23 Cal. 142 (1863)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1863
Judges
Crocker
Citations
23 Cal. 142
Syllabus
Where the debt, to secure which a mortgage is given, is barred by the Statute of Limitations, the mortgage is also barred; and if an action is brought to foreclose it, one who has purchased or acquired a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage, has a right to intervene in the action and plead the Statute of Limitations.
Summary
Appeal from the Eleventh Judicial District, El Dorado County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Crocker

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

Crocker, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. Schneider filed a petition of intervention, alleging that he had purchased the mortgaged premises at a sale under a decree of foreclosure of a subsequent mortgage, and that plaintiff’s mortgage was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff demurred to the petition, so far as it set up the Statute of Limitations, on the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the action. The Court below sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the debt, foreclosing the mortgage and ordering a sale of the mortgaged premises; from which the intervenor appeals.

The note sued on, and to secure which the mortgage was given, fell due on the first day of November, 1857, and this action was not commenced until December 13th, 1861, more than four years after the right of action accrued. We have held in several cases, that a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer of the mortgaged premises has the right to plead the Statute of Limitations in bar of any action for the sale of the property. (Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 490 ; McCarthy v. White, 21 Id. 495 ; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Id. 16.) The intervenor had a clear right to intervene in this case, and plead the Statute of Limitations in bar of so much of the relief as related to a sale of the mortgaged premises for the payment of the plaintiff’s debt.

The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. '

How later courts describe this case

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

1869–1870: 11877–1878: 11879–1880: 11889–1890: 11903–1904: 21905–1906: 11909–1910: 118692026peak 1903 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Schmucker v. Sibert18 Kan. 104 (1877)
  2. Ward v. Waterman24 P. 930 (Cal. 1890)
  3. Faricy v. St. Paul Investment & Savings Society125 N.W. 676 (Minn. 1910)
  4. Smith v. Ford2 N.W. 134 (Wis. 1880)
  5. Graves v. Seifried87 P. 674 (Utah 1906)
  6. Tinsley v. Lombard78 P. 895 (Or. 1904)

Most recent

  1. Faricy v. St. Paul Investment & Savings Society125 N.W. 676 (Minn. 1910)
  2. Graves v. Seifried87 P. 674 (Utah 1906)
  3. Tinsley v. Lombard78 P. 895 (Or. 1904)
  4. Hopkins v. Clyde71 Ohio St. (N.S.) 141 (1904)
  5. Ward v. Waterman24 P. 930 (Cal. 1890)
  6. Smith v. Ford2 N.W. 134 (Wis. 1880)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 482 (1861) 78

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