Brooks v. Rice

56 Cal. 428
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1880
DocketNo. 7,179
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 56 Cal. 428 (Brooks v. Rice) 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
Brooks v. Rice, 56 Cal. 428 (Cal. 1880).

Opinion

By the Court :

The Courtis of opinion that the judgment in this cause should be so modified as to direct the forclosure of the mortgage held by plaintiff as to all the property mentioned in it; that the property embraced in the mortgage of plaintiff, add not embraced in the mortgage to Beckwith, set on foot by the judgment, should be first sold, and the proceeds paid over to the plaintiff, to the extent of his debt and costs, and any surplus remaining, to the defendants, purchasers from the mortgagor. If the proceeds of [429]*429such s<alc should be insufficient to pay off plaintiff’s mortgage, that then the remaining property embraced in his mortgage should be directed to be sold, and the proceeds of the sale applied to the payment of the mortgage to Beckwith, and if any surplus remains, to the payment of the mortgage of the plaintiff. If anything remains after such payment last mentioned, it should be paid over to the purchasers from the mortgagor.

The cause is remanded, that the modifications above pointed out may be made by the Superior Court of the county of Ventura. The appellant to recover the costs of this appeal.

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

Related

Investcal Realty Corp. v. Edgar H. Mueller Constr. Co.
247 Cal. App. 2d 190 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Wilson v. McLaughlin
67 P.2d 710 (California Court of Appeal, 1937)
Bard v. Standard Mortgage Corp.
6 P.2d 582 (California Court of Appeal, 1932)
Korb v. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co.
3 P.2d 502 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1931)
State v. Tremont
200 N.W. 93 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1924)
McCarthy v. Kurkjian
224 P. 1016 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Ferry v. Fisk
202 P. 964 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
James v. Williams
169 P. 1163 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1918)
Sullivan v. Saunders
66 S.E. 497 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1909)
Anglo-Californian Bank, Ltd. v. Field
80 P. 1080 (California Supreme Court, 1905)
Shattuck v. Belknap Savings Bank
65 P. 643 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1901)
Davis v. Randall
48 P. 906 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Brackett v. Banegas
48 P. 90 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Shaffer v. McCloskey
36 P. 196 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
Cook v. Foster
55 N.W. 1019 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Bowling v. Garrett
49 Kan. 504 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1892)
Tolman v. Smith
24 P. 743 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Scrivner v. Dietz
24 P. 171 (California Supreme Court, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 Cal. 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-rice-cal-1880.