Mascarel v. Raffour

51 Cal. 242
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1876
DocketNo. 4907
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 51 Cal. 242 (Mascarel v. Raffour) 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
Mascarel v. Raffour, 51 Cal. 242 (Cal. 1876).

Opinion

By the Court:

The action is to foreclose three mortgages, two of which are upon the same parcel of land and none other, while the third is also upon that parcel and an adjoining parcel. The decree forecloses the three mortgages upon the first parcel; but omits to foreclose the third mortgage on tho second parcel; and orders a personal judgment against the mortgagor for the deficiency, if there be one. The mortgagor appeals, and makes the point that under section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure there can be no personal judgment against the defendant for the deficiency until the mortgage security has been entirely exhausted. But by the foreclosure the mortgage is merged in the judgment, and a new action could not be maintained to foreclose the mortgage as to the omitted lot. A mortgage cannot be foreclosed by piecemeal in that way, and the legal effect of omitting from the decree of foreclosure a portion of the mortgaged premises is a waiver of the mortgage lien as to that portion. The mortgagor, therefore, cannot complain of the decree.

But the court erred in the amount awarded to the plaintiff for counsel fees under the mortgage of March 10, 1873. The proper amount was two hundred and sixty-five dollars and seventy cents, being five per cent, on the principal and [243]*243interest, which the court finds was due at the date of the decree. But the court awarded two hundred and ninety-eight dollars and fifty cents, being an excess of thirty-two dollars and seventy-five cents over the proper amount. The judgment is hereby modified accordingly, by deducting from the amount thereof the sum of thirty-two dollars and seventy-five cents, and as so modified is affirmed.

Remittitur forthwith.

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

Related

Dupuy v. Western State Bank
375 N.W.2d 909 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1985)
Carnation Co. v. Kristal (In Re Kristal)
37 B.R. 659 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Bodner v. Brickner
29 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1968)
Layden v. . Layden
44 S.E.2d 340 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1947)
In re City of New York to Acquire Title to East Twenty-Ninth Street
247 A.D. 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1936)
Long v. W. P. Devereux Co.
286 P. 402 (Montana Supreme Court, 1930)
Craig v. Burns
212 P. 856 (Montana Supreme Court, 1923)
Citizens' Sav. Bank of San Diego v. Bennett
190 P. 44 (California Supreme Court, 1920)
Widmann v. Hammack
187 P. 1091 (Washington Supreme Court, 1920)
Red Deer Oil Development Co. v. Huggins
155 S.W. 949 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Murphy v. Superior Court
70 P. 1070 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Newhall v. Bank of Livermore
69 P. 248 (California Supreme Court, 1902)
Dooly v. Eastman
68 P. 1039 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Bank of Ukiah v. Reed
63 P. 921 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Gerig v. Loveland
62 P. 830 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. Harrold
60 P. 165 (California Supreme Court, 1900)
De Weese v. Smith
97 F. 309 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1899)
Campan v. Molle
57 P. 208 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Commercial Bank v. Kershner
52 P. 848 (California Supreme Court, 1898)
Hildreth v. Williams
33 P. 1113 (California Supreme Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 Cal. 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mascarel-v-raffour-cal-1876.