Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

63 Cal. 366

Bartlett v. Cottle

California Supreme Court

Decided May 8, 1883

California Supreme Court · decided 1883-05-08

The note in question was secured by a mortgage on real and personal property. The action was brought on the note alone, the complaint being silent as to the mortgage. The existence of the mortgage was set forth in the answer as matter in abatement of the action. The court below found that the security was of no value, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-05-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently December 1936

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

50188318901900191019201930decided

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 →

Thornton, J.

¶1It iscontended that the judgment in this case ought not to stand, because the security was not valueless when the action was commenced. On an examination of the testimony, we are of opinion that the security was not without value at the time referred to. The respondent in his calculation of value of the security leaves out the value of the houses on the leased property (the security in question), which was testified to by Perrine, the lessor. This action on the note, then, cannot be maintained under the provisions of section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to this section, there can be but one action, and that of the character prescribed in it.

¶2Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.

¶3Myrick, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.

/63/cal/366 · .json · Public domain