Summary
In Faekler v. Wright, 86 Cal. 210, the question was again one of jurisdiction arising on the pleadings, and it was held, in sustaining the jurisdiction, that the court must take judicial notice that land described by reference to the public surveys was in the county where the action to foreclose a mortgage was commenced.
Summary of this case from People v. Oakland Water Front Co.Opinion
Department One
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County.
COUNSEL:
Victor Montgomery, for Appellants.
Ray Billingsby, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Paterson, J. Works, J., and Fox, J., concurred.
OPINION
PATERSON, Judge
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 Rancho 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 of the territory which has, since the execution of the 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.