Gregory v. Keating

California Supreme Court

Gregory v. Keating

22 P. 1084, 3 Cal. Unrep. 208

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 31, 1889

DocketNo. 12,472

StatusPublished

This text of 22 P. 1084 (Gregory v. Keating) 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

Gregory v. Keating, 22 P. 1084, 3 Cal. Unrep. 208 (Cal. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

THORNTON, J.

In this case the judgment forecloses the mortgages executed to plaintiff, and subjects to sale the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor, Denis Keating, in the mortgaged premises. It forecloses and bars only the right, title, and equity of redemption of defendant Mary Keating as to such possession. It does not purport to affect in any way her prior adverse right to the buildings on the premises, if she has any. Nor do we see in the findings of facts anything determinative of the claimed adverse right of Mary Keating. The facts found as to her only bear on her right to remove the buildings from the land involved in the suit under the terms of the lease. On the return to the court below, that court is directed to modify the judgment so as to preserve the adverse right to the buildings set up by her, unaffected and unprejudiced by the judgment. On the [209]*209making of such modification of the judgment, the judgment and order will stand affirmed.

We concur: McFarland, J.; Sharpstein, J.

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

THORNTON, J.

In this case the judgment forecloses the mortgages executed to plaintiff, and subjects to sale the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor, Denis Keating, in the mortgaged premises. It forecloses and bars only the right, title, and equity of redemption of defendant Mary Keating as to such possession. It does not purport to affect in any way her prior adverse right to the buildings on the premises, if she has any. Nor do we see in the findings of facts anything determinative of the claimed adverse right of Mary Keating. The facts found as to her only bear on her right to remove the buildings from the land involved in the suit under the terms of the lease. On the return to the court below, that court is directed to modify the judgment so as to preserve the adverse right to the buildings set up by her, unaffected and unprejudiced by the judgment. On the [209]*209making of such modification of the judgment, the judgment and order will stand affirmed.

We concur: McFarland, J.; Sharpstein, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 P. 1084, 3 Cal. Unrep. 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregory-v-keating-cal-1889.