Pellier v. Gillespie

Decided October 9, 1885

California Supreme Court · decided 1885-10-09

This was an action to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant Gillespie, who subsequently conveyed the property to the appellant subject to the mortgage. The affidavit of service shows that the summons was served on all the defendants in the county of Santa Clara, and that a copy of the complaint was served on defendant Gillespie.

Relies on Biddel v. Brizzolara

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1885-10-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1936

6 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 →

McKinstry, J., concurring.

¶1I concur in the judgment. The- mor tgage-and'decree contain a good description.

¶2 *584

¶3Treating the contract of the defendant, the San Jose Independent Mill and Lumber Company, as in equity, and in view of section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a contract to indemnify the mortgagor against the payment of any deficiency that might arise under a foreclosure and sale, it was an agreement of the benefits' of which the mortgagee could avail himself upon the principle of subrogation. (Briddel v. Brizzolara, 64 Cal. 354.)

¶4I agree the affidavit of service was sufficient.

¶5Ross, J., concurred.

¶6Behearing denied.