Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Noonan (1883) · DecisionDepot

Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Noonan

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

California Supreme Court Mar 7, 1883 No. No. 7733Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the finding that the leasehold interest held in Matthew Nunan's name was actually the property of Thomas Noonan, and that the issue of ownership was properly before the court.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the finding that the leasehold interest was the property of Thomas Noonan.
Whether the court properly determined the issue of ownership between the defendants.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to sustain the finding of the court below to the effect that the leasehold interest, with the appurtenances, purchased from the estate of Armstrong, and taken in the name of said Matthew Nunan, was in fact the property of the defendant Thomas Noonan.”

“The objection that there was no such issue between the defendants Thomas and Matthew is not well taken.”

Synopsis

Mortgage Foreclosure—Determination of Ownership.—In an action to foreclose a mortgage the record owner of the mortgaged property cannot complain if, after he by his answer has virtually invited the true owner to contest his title, the court determines the ownership.

By the COURT. We do not perceive in this case any just cause of complaint on the part of the defendant Matthew Nunan. The evidence is undoubtedly sufficient to sustain the finding of the court below to the effect that the leasehold interest, with the appurtenances, purchased from the estate of Armstrong, and taken in the name of said Matthew Nunan, was in fact the property of the defendant Thomas Noonan. The objection that there was no such issue between the defendants Thomas and Matthew is not well taken. The latter expressly alleged that he was the owner of the whole of the leasehold and appurtenances (including the purchase from the estate of Armstrong) on which issue was taken by the defendant Thomas. Plaving raised that issue, he cannot complain that the court determined it. The order in which the court below directed the respective interests in the property embraced in the plaintiff’s mortgage to be sold, and the application of the proceeds, are just as they should be.

Judgment and order affirmed.

Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Noonan

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief