Benner v. Troughton

California Supreme Court

Benner v. Troughton

17 Cal. 247

DecidedJuly 1, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 17 Cal. 247 (Benner v. Troughton) 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

Benner v. Troughton, 17 Cal. 247 (Cal. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

The errors assigned are technical exceptions, not sustained by the record, or the appellants cannot avail themselves of them—such as the alleged irregularity in Wilson’s mortgage. Wilson, it seems, set up his mortgage and prayed a sale of the property, and moved for judgment upon the findings. We think he cannot now object to the foreclosure of the mortgage as prayed for.

We see no substantial error in the decree.

It is affirmed.

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

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

The errors assigned are technical exceptions, not sustained by the record, or the appellants cannot avail themselves of them—such as the alleged irregularity in Wilson’s mortgage. Wilson, it seems, set up his mortgage and prayed a sale of the property, and moved for judgment upon the findings. We think he cannot now object to the foreclosure of the mortgage as prayed for.

We see no substantial error in the decree.

It is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 Cal. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benner-v-troughton-cal-1861.