Case Name: SAVINGS AND LOAN SOCIETY, Respondent, v. HORTON et al., Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1882-05-30
Citations: 2 Cal. Unrep. 137
Docket Number: No. 7552
Parties: SAVINGS AND LOAN SOCIETY, Respondent, v. HORTON et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
SAVINGS AND LOAN SOCIETY, Respondent, v. HORTON et al., Appellants.
No. 7552;
May 30, 1882. ■
Appeal—Judgment in Foreclosure—Defaulting Defendants— Presumption of Correctness.—On appeal from a judgment of foreclosure after all the defendants had made default, where the ease is presented on the judgment-roll simply, and the point urged is the excessive amount of the judgment, it must be presumed that the trial court, having had the evidence before it, was correct in its findings, until error is shown in the manner provided by law.
APPEAL from Superior Court, San Francisco.
Chase and Williams for appellants; Drown for respondent.

Opinion:
By the COURT.
This action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage executed by Alonzo E. Horton. All the defendants made default. The appeal is from the judgment. The only appellant is Levi Chase, who was made a party defendant as claiming to have some estate or interest in the mortgaged property, or lien or demand on it, or some part of it, which claim was alleged in the complaint to be subject and inferior to the lien of the plaintiff's mortgage.
The case comes before us on the judgment-roll. It is urged that the judgment is for too large an amount. The amount for which judgment was to be rendered was peculiarly a matter for the lower court to determine. On what principles or data it proceeded nowhere appears in the record. This the court below was to determine on the evidence before it. What that evidence was, it is not made to appear to us by any statement or bill of exceptions, or in any mode allowed by law. We cannot review the action of the court below on the record before us. We must presume it to be correct' until error is shown in the manner prescribed by law. If the appellant was aggrieved by the action of the lower court he might, perhaps, have obtained relief by timely motion in that forum. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.