Pacific States S. & L. Co. v. O'Neill
Before: Thompson
THOMPSON, J.
The defendants appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in an action in unlawful detainer brought pursuant to the provisions of section 1161a of the Code of Civil Procedure, after sale of the property to plaintiff by the trustee named in a deed of trust given to secure the repayment of $55,000 and interest thereon. In essence, the contentions relied upon by appellants may be stated as follows:
1. The sale was void because the note and trust deed provided for payment in gold coin of the United States, whereas the notice of default, the notice of sale, and the bid all proceeded upon the theory that the note was payable in lawful money. It is argued, indeed, that the trust deed requirement was void after June 5, 1933, the date when, by resolution of Congress, any obligation requiring the obligor to pay in gold coin was declared to be against public policy
[598]
and any such obligation discharged by payment in any coin or currency which is legal tender.
2. The sale was
en masse
of three parcels of property and, therefore, void, because contrary to section 694 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The notices of sale did not remain posted on the land for a sufficient length of time.
There are two other assignments, unaccompanied either by argument or citation of authority, and, under a well-established rule of appellate practice, we are not constrained to take further notice thereof.
Concerning the first contention, it is sufficient to cite the ease of
Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles
v.
De la Cuesta,
15 Cal. App. (2d) 302 [59 Pac. (2d) 542], in which we denied a hearing and in which ease we are in accord, so far as applicable here. It is there pointed out that the effect of the joint resolution passed by Congress (48 U. S. Stats, at Large, chap. 48, p. 112) was to “strike from defendant’s contract the specification of gold coin as the medium of payment of the debt”. It necessarily follows that all arguments grounded upon a contrary premise must fall.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)