Barker v. Maskell

California Supreme Court

Barker v. Maskell

35 P. 641, 101 Cal. 9, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 978

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 3, 1894

DocketNo. 19206

StatusPublished

This text of 35 P. 641 (Barker v. Maskell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barker v. Maskell, 35 P. 641, 101 Cal. 9, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 978 (Cal. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

De Haven, J.

The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain furniture and upholstery used in a lodging-house in the city of Los Angeles. The mortgage was executed to the plaintiffs by one of the defendants for the purpose of securing a promissory note made by himself and the other defendant.

[10]*10We think it sufficiently appears from the complaint that the note was given for the purchase price of the property mortgaged, and, therefore, the mortgage is one to secure the purchase money of the articles mortgaged, and valid under section 2955 of the Civil Code. But even if it should be conceded that the complaint is ambiguous, and fails to show that the mortgage was given for the purpose of securing the purchase price of the property therein described, still the mortgage is valid as between the parties to it, and the complaint states a good cause of action from either point of view.

There was no error in overruling the demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Fitzgerald, J., and McFarland, J. concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

De Haven, J.

The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain furniture and upholstery used in a lodging-house in the city of Los Angeles. The mortgage was executed to the plaintiffs by one of the defendants for the purpose of securing a promissory note made by himself and the other defendant.

[10]*10We think it sufficiently appears from the complaint that the note was given for the purchase price of the property mortgaged, and, therefore, the mortgage is one to secure the purchase money of the articles mortgaged, and valid under section 2955 of the Civil Code. But even if it should be conceded that the complaint is ambiguous, and fails to show that the mortgage was given for the purpose of securing the purchase price of the property therein described, still the mortgage is valid as between the parties to it, and the complaint states a good cause of action from either point of view.

There was no error in overruling the demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Fitzgerald, J., and McFarland, J. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 P. 641, 101 Cal. 9, 1894 Cal. LEXIS 978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-maskell-cal-1894.