TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dreyfuss v. Giles

L. W. DREYFUSS v. SARAH GILES

Dreyfuss v. Giles, 21 P. 840 (Cal. 1889)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 1, 1889
Docket
No. 12430
Judges
Works
Citations
21 P. 84079 Cal. 4091889 Cal. LEXIS 741
Syllabus
Mortgage—Estates op Deceased Persons—Presentation op Mortgage Claim — Distribution — Bes Adjudicata.—It is not necessary for a mortgagee to present the mortgage as a claim against the estate, when all claim is waived against any property of the estate except that described in the mortgage; and the settlement and distribution of the estate is no bar to the right to f orclose the mortgage against the distributee of the mortgaged land, or the grantee of such distributee. Appeal—Damages.—When an appeal is evidently taken for delay, damages will be imposed by this court.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County, and from an order refusing a new trial. 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 — Works

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

Works, J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. The complaint alleges the death of the mortgagor, the settlement of the estate, the distribution of the mortgaged property to his daughter, an only heir, and the sale of the mortgaged property by her to the defendants in this action. It is also averred in the complaint that the mortgage was not due at the time the estate was closed, and final distribution made, and was not presented as a claim against the estate. The complaint expressly waives all claims against any other property of the estate except the lands described in the mortgage. In their answer, the defendants plead the settlement and final distribution of the estate as a bar to the plaintiff’s right to recover, and this is the only question made on this appeal.

• It was not necessary for the plaintiffs to present their mortgage as a claim against the estate, and their failure to do so, and the settlement and distribution of the estate, was no bar to their right to foreclose the mortgage. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1500; Security Savings Bank v. Connell, 65 Cal. 574 .)

It is evident the appeal in this case was taken for delay.

*411 Order and judgment appealed from affirmed, with ten per cent damages.

Beatty, C. J., Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

Rehearing denied.

How later courts describe this case

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

1891: 11913: 11916: 11927: 11937: 118912026peak 1891 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Corporation of America v. Marks73 P.2d 1215 (Cal. 1937)
  2. Berry v. Scott255 P. 305 (Idaho 1927)
  3. Martin v. Saxton160 P. 441 (Utah 1916)
  4. Fawcett v. McGahan-mckee Lumber Co.1913 OK 97, 134 P. 388
  5. Anglo-Nevada Assurance Corp. v. Nadeau27 P. 302 (Cal. 1891)

Most recent

  1. Corporation of America v. Marks73 P.2d 1215 (Cal. 1937)
  2. Berry v. Scott255 P. 305 (Idaho 1927)
  3. Martin v. Saxton160 P. 441 (Utah 1916)
  4. Fawcett v. McGahan-mckee Lumber Co.1913 OK 97, 134 P. 388
  5. Anglo-Nevada Assurance Corp. v. Nadeau27 P. 302 (Cal. 1891)

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
Sec. Sav. Bank v. Connell, 4 P. 580 (Cal. 1884) 4

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