Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 Cal. 409

Dreyfuss v. Giles

California Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1889

California Supreme Court · decided 1889-06-01

<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County, and from an order refusing a new trial.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Relies on Security Savings Bank v. Connell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-06-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 1937

5 state decisions

20188918901900191019201930decided

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 →

Works, J.

¶1This is an action to foreclose a mortgage. The complaint alleges the death of the mortgagor, the settlement of the estate, the distribution of the mortgaged property to his daughter, an only heir, and the sale of the mortgaged property by her to the defendants in this action. It is also averred in the complaint that the mortgage was not due at the time the estate was closed, and final distribution made, and was not presented as a claim against the estate. The complaint expressly waives all claims against any other property of the estate except the lands described in the mortgage. In their answer, the defendants plead the settlement and final distribution of the estate as a bar to the plaintiff’s right to recover, and this is the only question made on this appeal.

¶2• It was not necessary for the plaintiffs to present their mortgage as a claim against the estate, and their failure to do so, and the settlement and distribution of the estate, was no bar to their right to foreclose the mortgage. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1500; Security Savings Bank v. Connell, 65 Cal. 574.)

¶3It is evident the appeal in this case was taken for delay.

¶4*411Order and judgment appealed from affirmed, with ten per cent damages.

¶5Beatty, C. J., Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., and Thornton, J., concurred.

¶6Rehearing denied.

/79/cal/409 · .json · Public domain