Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 Cal. 192

Brown v. Mann

California Supreme Court

Decided September 30, 1886

California Supreme Court · decided 1886-09-30

<p>Estate of Decedent — Foreclosure of Mortgage—Administrator as Mortgagee — Statute of Limitations. — The assignee of a mortgage cannot maintain an action of foreclosure against the estate of a deceased person of which the mortgagee is the administrator, if the assignment of the mortgage was made for the sole purpose of having the mortgage foreclosed for the benefit of the mortgagee. If such an action is brought, and the mortgagee, after ceasing to be the administrator, is substituted as plaintiff in place of the assignee, the statute of limitations will run against the mortgage debt until the date of the substitution.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-09-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1936

5 state decisions

20188618901900191019201930decided

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 →

Myrick, J.

¶1Foreclosure. The note and mortgage were dated May 4, 1870, payable in one year, to wit, May 4, 1871. The proceedings had after the transfer of the note and mortgage by plaintiff (Charles Brown) to Adolphus Brown, with the suit thereon, must be disregarded, because Charles Brown, being the administrator of the estate of Abel Mann, could not, under the name of Adolphus Brown, have an action for his own benefit against himself as administrator to foreclose the mortgage. He had ample means in other ways to obtain the benefit of his security. Not until he ceased to be administrator and was substituted as plaintiff, which was after May 4, 1875, had he, Charles Brown, the plaintiff herein, commenced any proper action to foreclose the mortgage. At that time more than four years had elapsed after the note came due, and the action was barred.

¶2In this view the balance of the case, and the points and arguments presented on either side, are quite immaterial.

¶3Judgment and order affirmed.

¶4McKinstry, J., and Ross, J., concurred.

¶5Hearing in Bank denied.

/71/cal/192 · .json · Public domain