Barton v. Maal

California Court of Appeal

Barton v. Maal

55 P.2d 529, 12 Cal. App. 2d 353, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1040

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 10, 1936

DocketCiv. 10857

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 55 P.2d 529 (Barton v. Maal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barton v. Maal, 55 P.2d 529, 12 Cal. App. 2d 353, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAIL, P. J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment against him foreclosing a mortgage. His contention is that the complaint upon which the action was based did not demand a foreclosure of the mortgage, that the judgment was entered against him upon his failure to appear in the action, and was therefore erroneous for the reason that the court was not authorized to grant relief in excess of that demanded in the complaint. The record on appeal shows clearly that there was no demand in the complaint for the foreclosure of the mortgage, and it is settled law that in a default case the relief granted cannot be greater in amount or different in kind than that prayed for. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 580; Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 33 [52 Pac. 122, 65 Am. St. Rep. 147]; Brooks v. Forington, 117 Cal. 219 [48 Pac. 1073]; 18 Cal. Jur. 467.) Indeed the parties stipulate that the judgment ijiay be reversed and that costs on appeal of $47.30 may bei taxed against respondent. This stipulation is sufficient under section 954a of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter of the judgment and a remittitur may issue forthwith.

Judgment reversed and costs taxed accordingly.

Wood, J., and Gould, J., pro few., concurred.

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

CRAIL, P. J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment against him foreclosing a mortgage. His contention is that the complaint upon which the action was based did not demand a foreclosure of the mortgage, that the judgment was entered against him upon his failure to appear in the action, and was therefore erroneous for the reason that the court was not authorized to grant relief in excess of that demanded in the complaint. The record on appeal shows clearly that there was no demand in the complaint for the foreclosure of the mortgage, and it is settled law that in a default case the relief granted cannot be greater in amount or different in kind than that prayed for. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 580; Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 33 [52 Pac. 122, 65 Am. St. Rep. 147]; Brooks v. Forington, 117 Cal. 219 [48 Pac. 1073]; 18 Cal. Jur. 467.) Indeed the parties stipulate that the judgment ijiay be reversed and that costs on appeal of $47.30 may bei taxed against respondent. This stipulation is sufficient under section 954a of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter of the judgment and a remittitur may issue forthwith.

Judgment reversed and costs taxed accordingly.

Wood, J., and Gould, J., pro few., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 P.2d 529, 12 Cal. App. 2d 353, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barton-v-maal-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack