Case ID: cal_74/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Foote, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 11936.
    In Bank.
    December 2, 1887.]
    EDWARD VOLLMER et al., Appellants, v. GORGONIA O. De CASTILLO, Respondent.
    Findings—Foreclosure and Reformation of Mortgage—Delivery.— In an action for the reformation of the certificate of acknowledgment of a married woman to a mortgage alleged to have been executed by her, and for the foreclosure of the mortgage, a failure to find upon the issues raised in reference to the mistake in the certificate is immaterial, when the court finds that the mortgage never had been delivered by the alleged mortgagee.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County.
    The action was brought to obtain a judgment against the defendant for money alleged to be due upon a promissory note, and to foreclose a mortgage alleged to have been given by her to secure the note. The complaint alleged that the defendant, a married woman, executed the mortgage, that it was duly acknowledged by her, but that the notary in his certificate of acknowledgment erroneously described her by the name of “Gregorio” in place of “ Gorgonia.” The complaint prayed for a correction of the certificate, and that the mortgage, after being reformed, be foreclosed. The court found in effect that the defendant was a married woman at the time of the alleged execution of the mortgage, but that she never executed or delivered it; that she was never made acquainted with its contents by the notary, and that she never acknowledged to the notary that she executed it, or that she did not wish .to retract the execution; that the name of the defendant was not misspelled in the certificate of acknowledgment, but that said certificate contained as the name of the person purporting to acknowledge the execution the name of a different person. As conclusions of law, the court found, that the plaintiffs were entitled to judgment against the defendant for the amount due on the promissory note; that the certificate of acknowledgment should not be altered or corrected, and that the mortgage was not a lien upon the ■defendant’s land, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for its foreclosure. The further facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      S. M. Swinnerton, for Appellants.
    
      McD. R. Venable, and C. W. Qoodchild, for Respondent.
   Foote, C.

— This is an action to obtain a judgment against the defendant for money alleged to be due upon a promissory note, and to enforce a mortgage lien upon certain lands for the purpose of subjecting them to ■judicial sale, etc.

The court rendered a personal judgment against the defendant as prayed for, but found, among other things, that she had never delivered the mortgage sought to be foreclosed. Such delivery was one of the issues made by the pleadings. The appeal is upon the judgment roll alone, and since that material issue is found against the' plaintiff, it became unnecessary to find upon the other issues as to which the appellant complains there was no finding.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Belcher, C. C., and Hayne, C., concurred.

The Court. —For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.