Rollins v. Forbes

10 Cal. 299
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 10 Cal. 299 (Rollins v. Forbes) 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
Rollins v. Forbes, 10 Cal. 299 (Cal. 1858).

Opinion

Field, J., delivered the opinion of the Court

Terry, C. J., and Baldwin, J., concurring.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage, executed by both defendants, to secure a promissory note of the defendant Andrew Forbes. The complaint contains the usual averments in such cases, and concludes with a prayer for judgment for the amount of the note and interest, and a decree for the sale of the mortgaged premises. The defendants demurred on two grounds: first, that it does not appear by the complaint that the plaintiff is the holder of the note upon which, and the mortgage, the suit is brought j and, second, a misjoinder of causes of ac[300]*300tion, to wit: a cause of action at law upon a promissory-note against one of the defendants, and a cause of action in equity, upon a contract executed by both defendants. The demurrer was overruled, and the plaintiff took judgment for the amount of the note against the defendant Andrew Forbes, and a decree for the sale of the premises against both defendants. From this judgment and decree the defendants appeal.

The first ground of demurrer is answered by the fact that the complaint avers that the plaintiff is the owner of the note and mortgage. The second ground is frivolous ; the equitable relief follows as a consequence of the existence of the debt, and of the security for its payment. Objections to the prayer of a complaint can not be taken by demurrer. If the specific relief asked can not be granted, such relief as the case stated in the bill authorizes, may be had under the clause in the prayer for general relief, and even in the absence of such clause where an answer is filed. (Practice Act, § 147.)

It is usual for the decree, in mortgage cases, to adjudge the amount due upon the personal obligation, and direct a sale of the premises, and the application of the proceeds to its payment; but we see no objection to the formal rendition of a judgment for the amount found due. The proceeds can then be credited, by the officer making the sale, immediately upon the judgment, and no further action of the Court will be necessary to ascertain the deficiency for which the execution may issue.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Caldera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regents of the University
205 Cal. App. 4th 338 (California Court of Appeal, 2012)
American United Life Insurance v. Fischer
11 N.W.2d 573 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1943)
Grisingher v. Shaeffer
76 P.2d 149 (California Court of Appeal, 1938)
Wilson v. Anderson
293 P. 627 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Schultz v. Mexican Dam & Ditch Co.
224 P. 804 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1924)
Bull v. Smith
191 N.W. 624 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1922)
Miller v. Superior Court
210 P. 832 (California Court of Appeal, 1922)
Wheelwright v. Roman
165 P. 513 (Utah Supreme Court, 1917)
Idaho Irrigation Co. v. Dill
139 P. 714 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1914)
Schafer v. Olson
132 N.W. 645 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1911)
De Leonis v. Hammel
82 P. 349 (California Court of Appeal, 1905)
Booker v. Aitken
74 P. 11 (California Supreme Court, 1903)
Angus v. Craven
64 P. 1091 (California Supreme Court, 1901)
Bailey v. Dale
11 P. 804 (California Supreme Court, 1886)
Davis v. Alvord
94 U.S. 545 (Supreme Court, 1877)
Creighton v. Hershfield
2 Mont. 386 (Montana Supreme Court, 1876)
Althof v. Conheim
38 Cal. 230 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Englund v. Lewis
25 Cal. 337 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
Hobbs v. Duff
23 Cal. 596 (California Supreme Court, 1863)
De Leon v. Higuera
15 Cal. 483 (California Supreme Court, 1860)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Cal. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rollins-v-forbes-cal-1858.