Faekler v. Wright (1890) · DecisionDepot

Faekler v. Wright

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Oct 23, 1890 No. No. 13644Published

Before: Paterson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the mortgage foreclosure because it could take judicial notice that the described property, while originally in Los Angeles County, was located within the territory that became Orange County.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the mortgage foreclosure.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“it is a fact of which the court takes judicial notice.”

Synopsis

Foreclosure op Mortgage — Venue •—Jurisdicton — New County — In an action to foreclose a mortgage brought in a new county framed out of the county described in the mortgage, the court will take judicial notice that the premises are situated in the new county, notwithstanding the failure of the complaint specifically to allege that fact, if the copy of the mortgage referred to in the complaint, and attached to it as an exhibit, describes the land by section, range, and township, according to the government survey, showing that the mortgaged premises are located as matter of fact in the new county. Pleading — Exhibit — Government Survey — Judicial Notice. —■

Paterson, J. The only question raised by appellant which is worthy of consideration is, whether the court below had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. The complaint refers to the copy of the mortgage attached thereto for a description of the property. It is described therein as follows: “The real property situate in the Eancho Santiago de Santa Ana, county of Los Angeles, state of California, and described as follows, to wit: The northwest quarter of lot No. 3, of block C, containing ten acres of land in the A. B. Chapman tract, according to the survey thereof made by Frank Lecouvrer in the year 1870, being a portion of the northwest quarter of section 33, township 4 south, range 9 west, of San Bernardino base and meridian.” There is no allegation that the property described in the mortgage is a portion [211]mortgage, been taken from the county of Los Angeles to create the county of Orange; but, as a matter of fact, township 4 south, range 9 west, of San Bernardino base and meridian, is a part of that territory, and it is a fact of which the court takes judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1875, subds. 3, 8.)

Judgment affirmed.

Works, J., and Fox, J., concurred.

Faekler v. Wright

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief