Angier v. Masterson
Before: Heydenfeldt
Synopsis
Where the complaint is verified, it is no error to allow the defendant to verify his answer before trial, unless it is shown that the plaintiff is thereby taken by surprise.
In a suit to foreclose a mortgage, it is competent for the defendants to introduce in evidence a subsequent written agreement of the parties, by which an assignment of the rents of the mortgaged premises, until full payment of the mortgage debt, is made by the mortgagor and accepted by the mortgagee.
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt. Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.
The statement of the case is very meagre, and discloses nothing to show that there was error in the trial below. It was no error to allow the defendant to verify his answer before trial, unless it in some way took the plaintiff by surprise, and this is not shown.
The written agreement offered in evidence was set up in the answer, to show that the plaintiff by means of it- had collected a portion of the mortgage debt; for this purpose it was properly offered as a link in the chain of evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
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)