From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Security Savings Bank v. Connell

Supreme Court of California
Sep 3, 1884
65 Cal. 574 (Cal. 1884)

Opinion

         APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County.

         Action to foreclose a mortgage.

         COUNSEL:

         W. H. Spencer, for Appellant.

         E. Jackman, and McD. R. Venable, for Respondent.


         OPINION

         The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

         THE COURT.

         The claim being one secured by mortgage, and the plaintiff in its complaint having expressly waived all recourse against any property of the estate other than the mortgaged premises, it was not necessary to present such claim to the administratrix for allowance or rejection. ( § 1500, Code Civ. Proc. as amended in 1876.) Therefore it was not necessary that plaintiff should set forth in its complaint any such presentation.

         Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions to overrule the demurrer of the administratrix, with leave to her to answer the complaint within ten days after notice of the order overruling said demurrer.


Summaries of

Security Savings Bank v. Connell

Supreme Court of California
Sep 3, 1884
65 Cal. 574 (Cal. 1884)
Case details for

Security Savings Bank v. Connell

Case Details

Full title:SECURITY SAVINGS BANK, RESPONDENT, v. SARAH CONNELL, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE…

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Sep 3, 1884

Citations

65 Cal. 574 (Cal. 1884)
4 P. 580

Citing Cases

Anglo-Nevada Assurance Corp. v. Nadeau

No presentation was necessary in law, because the complaint conforms to the statute relating to foreclosure…

Southern Pac. Co. v. Hall

The testimony having been admitted without objection, and no motion having been made to strike it out, the…