From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bennett v. Taylor

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1855
5 Cal. 502 (Cal. 1855)

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County.

         COUNSEL:

         Howard & Perley, for Appellants.

          L. Sanders, Jr., for Respondent.


         No authorities were cited by counsel.

         JUDGES: Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

         OPINION

          MURRAY, Judge

         The Court below erred in permitting the plaintiff to introduce the mortgage in evidence, without first producing or accounting for the note.

         The mortgage was a mere incident to the debt; and in order to maintain the action, which was founded on the plaintiff's possession and the mortgage, the debt should have been proved.

         In other respects, the rulings of the Court were correct, and the case properly tried.

         Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

Affirmed, Phelan v. Olney , 6 Cal. 478;

McMillan Richards


Summaries of

Bennett v. Taylor

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1855
5 Cal. 502 (Cal. 1855)
Case details for

Bennett v. Taylor

Case Details

Full title:Simon B. Bennett, Respondent, v. Nelson Taylor&others, Appellants

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1855

Citations

5 Cal. 502 (Cal. 1855)

Citing Cases

Phelan v. Olney

          TERRY, Judge          In Ord v. McKee (5 Cal. 515), and Bennett v. Taylor (5 Cal. 502), we held…

McMillan v. Richards

"          In Bennett v. Taylor et al., (5 Cal. 502,) the facts are not stated, but it would appear from the…