Bartlett v. Cottle

California Supreme Court

Bartlett v. Cottle

63 Cal. 366, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 461

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedMay 8, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 63 Cal. 366 (Bartlett v. Cottle) 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

Bartlett v. Cottle, 63 Cal. 366, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 461 (Cal. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Thornton, J.

It iscontended that the judgment in this case ought not to stand, because the security was not valueless when the action was commenced. On an examination of the testimony, we are of opinion that the security was not without value at the time referred to. The respondent in his calculation of value of the security leaves out the value of the houses on the leased property (the security in question), which was testified to by Perrine, the lessor. This action on the note, then, cannot be maintained under the provisions of section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to this section, there can be but one action, and that of the character prescribed in it.

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.

Myrick, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

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

Thornton, J.

It iscontended that the judgment in this case ought not to stand, because the security was not valueless when the action was commenced. On an examination of the testimony, we are of opinion that the security was not without value at the time referred to. The respondent in his calculation of value of the security leaves out the value of the houses on the leased property (the security in question), which was testified to by Perrine, the lessor. This action on the note, then, cannot be maintained under the provisions of section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to this section, there can be but one action, and that of the character prescribed in it.

Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.

Myrick, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 Cal. 366, 1883 Cal. LEXIS 461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlett-v-cottle-cal-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack