Hunt v. Dohrs

California Supreme Court

Hunt v. Dohrs

39 Cal. 304

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1870·No. No. 2,284·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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,

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

Pincite

39 Cal. 304 (Hunt v. Dohrs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related