¶1I concur with the views expressed in the prevailing opinion upon the question of the Statute of Limitations; but I dissent from those expressed upon the subject of the description of the mortgaged premises in the decree of foreclosure. It is conceded that the description of the land in the morgage, and in the foreclosure proceedings, was sufficient (Vance v. Fore, 24 Cal. 435 ; Penry v. Richards, 52 id. 672; Stanley v. Green, 12 id. 148; Caldwell v. Center, 30 id. 539; Kimball v. Semple, 25 id. 440); and I do not understand how its transmission into the decree of foreclosure changed it into a nullity.
61 Cal. 557
Crosby v. Dowd
Decided October 12, 1882
California Supreme Court · decided 1882-10-12
Appeals by defendants from the judgments of the Twentieth District Court in and for the County of Santa Clara, from an order denying a motion for a new trial, from an order amending the findings of the Court, and from an order refusing to correct the findings. Belden, J. Action in ejectment. The plaintiff was born February 26, 1859. As to the defense of the Statute of Limitations relied on by the defendants; the other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Relies on Vance v. Fore
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1882-10-12
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1922
13 state decisions
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 →