Moses v. Thorne

California Supreme Court

Moses v. Thorne

6 Cal. 87

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1856

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 6 Cal. 87 (Moses v. Thorne) 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

Moses v. Thorne, 6 Cal. 87 (Cal. 1856).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

There was no right of action in the plaintiff in his own name. To entitle him to bring this suit, he should have had an assignment of the bond. The assignment of the judgment, while it may give him equitable rights to avail himself of the security afforded by the bond, cannot confer the right of bringing a common law action upon it.

The reason why a mortgage follows the transfer of a note which it secures, is because a foreclosure is only sought in equity.

The judgment is reversed.

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

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

There was no right of action in the plaintiff in his own name. To entitle him to bring this suit, he should have had an assignment of the bond. The assignment of the judgment, while it may give him equitable rights to avail himself of the security afforded by the bond, cannot confer the right of bringing a common law action upon it.

The reason why a mortgage follows the transfer of a note which it secures, is because a foreclosure is only sought in equity.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Cal. 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-v-thorne-cal-1856.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack