Jarrett v. Redman

California Court of Appeal

Jarrett v. Redman

79 Cal. App. 794

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 13, 1926

DocketCiv. No. 5319

StatusPublished

This text of 79 Cal. App. 794 (Jarrett v. Redman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jarrett v. Redman, 79 Cal. App. 794 (Cal. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

TYLER, P. J.

Suit to foreclose a mortgage.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant Redman was indebted to him in the sum of two thousand dollars evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a mortgage upon certain real property situated in Los Angeles County. Defendant Cooney was made a party defendant to the foreclosure proceeding for the reason that he claimed an interest in the [795]*795mortgaged premises by reason of a certain lien upon the property.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Redman. The judgment determined that defendant Cooney had no interest in the property for the reason that the judgment under which he claimed his lien attached was null and void. Defendant Cooney appeals. The precise question here involved is discussed and decided in Jarrett v. Redman, ante, p. 482 [250 Pac. 183]. Upon the authority of that case the judgment herein is affirmed.

Knight, J., and Campbell, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

TYLER, P. J.

Suit to foreclose a mortgage.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant Redman was indebted to him in the sum of two thousand dollars evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a mortgage upon certain real property situated in Los Angeles County. Defendant Cooney was made a party defendant to the foreclosure proceeding for the reason that he claimed an interest in the [795]*795mortgaged premises by reason of a certain lien upon the property.

Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendant Redman. The judgment determined that defendant Cooney had no interest in the property for the reason that the judgment under which he claimed his lien attached was null and void. Defendant Cooney appeals. The precise question here involved is discussed and decided in Jarrett v. Redman, ante, p. 482 [250 Pac. 183]. Upon the authority of that case the judgment herein is affirmed.

Knight, J., and Campbell, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 Cal. App. 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarrett-v-redman-calctapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack