MacNeil v. Ward (1883) · DecisionDepot

MacNeil v. Ward

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

California Supreme Court Apr 20, 1883 No. No. 8882Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the judgment was not erroneous for failing to direct a deficiency docketing, but required modification to expressly state the defendant's personal liability.

Issues

Whether the judgment was erroneous for failing to direct that a judgment be docketed for deficiency.
Whether the judgment was defective for failing to expressly adjudge the defendant personally liable.

Disposition. Modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment in this case is not amenable to the criticism of counsel for appellant, that it is erroneous because there is no direction in it that a judgment be docketed for deficiency.”

“The only point in which the judgment seems to be defective is in not expressly adjudging that the defendant Ward is personally liable to the plaintiff for the money found to be due.”

Synopsis

Foreclosure of Mortgage.—A Judgment in a Foreclosure Suit Does not Fail for not directing the docketing of judgment for a deficiency.

Foreclosure of Mortgage.—A Judgment in a Foreclosure Suit Does not Fail for not adjudging expressly the defendant’s personal liability to' the plaintiff, if such an adjudging is to be inferred from it.

THORNTON, J. The judgment in this case is not amenable to the criticism of counsel for appellant, that it is erroneous because there is no direction in it that a judgment be docketed for deficiency. In this respect it (the judgment) accords with Leviston v. Swan, 33 Cal. 480, where the question is considered and correctly determined.

The only point in which the judgment seems to be defective is in not expressly adjudging that the defendant Ward is personally liable to the plaintiff for the money found to be due. This is inferentially done.

The court below is directed on the going down of the remittitur to amend the judgment by inserting words remedying this defect, and as thus modified the judgment will stand affirmed.

We concur: Sharpstein, J.; Myriek, J.

MacNeil v. Ward

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief