Hunt v. Dohrs

California Supreme Court

Hunt v. Dohrs

39 Cal. 304

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1870

DocketNo. 2,284

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 Cal. 304 (Hunt v. Dohrs) 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

Hunt v. Dohrs, 39 Cal. 304 (Cal. 1870).

Pincite

Opinion

Rhodes, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The judgment for the principal of the promissory note is erroneous—because the complaint shows, that when the action was commenced, the note had not become due. The plaintiff might have taken a judgment for a sale of so much of the mortgaged premises, as might be necessary to satisfy the interest then due; but the order for the sale of all the premises was erroneous. The personal judgment against the defendant was erroneous. (See Practice Act, Sec. 246.)

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded,

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

Rhodes, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The judgment for the principal of the promissory note is erroneous—because the complaint shows, that when the action was commenced, the note had not become due. The plaintiff might have taken a judgment for a sale of so much of the mortgaged premises, as might be necessary to satisfy the interest then due; but the order for the sale of all the premises was erroneous. The personal judgment against the defendant was erroneous. (See Practice Act, Sec. 246.)

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Cal. 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-dohrs-cal-1870.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack