Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 Cal. 142

Coster v. Schneider

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863

California Supreme Court · decided 1863-07-01

<p>Appeal from the Eleventh Judicial District, El Dorado County.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.</p>

Relies on Lord v. Morris

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1863-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1910

6 state decisions

20186318701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Crocker, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring.

¶2This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. Schneider filed a petition of intervention, alleging that he had purchased the mortgaged premises at a sale under a decree of foreclosure of a subsequent mortgage, and that plaintiff’s mortgage was barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff demurred to the petition, so far as it set up the Statute of Limitations, on the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the action. The Court below sustained the demurrer, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the amount of the debt, foreclosing the mortgage and ordering a sale of the mortgaged premises; from which the intervenor appeals.

¶3The note sued on, and to secure which the mortgage was given, fell due on the first day of November, 1857, and this action was not commenced until December 13th, 1861, more than four years after the right of action accrued. We have held in several cases, that a subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer of the mortgaged premises has the right to plead the Statute of Limitations in bar of any action for the sale of the property. (Lord v. Morris, 18 Cal. 490 ; McCarthy v. White, 21 Id. 495 ; Grattan v. Wiggins, 23 Id. 16.) The intervenor had a clear right to intervene in this case, and plead the Statute of Limitations in bar of so much of the relief as related to a sale of the mortgaged premises for the payment of the plaintiff’s debt.

¶4The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings. '

/23/cal/142 · .json · Public domain