Case Name: O. J. BARKER et al., Respondents, v. JOHN MASKELL et al., Defendants, JOHN MASKELL, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1894-01-03
Citations: 101 Cal. 9
Docket Number: No. 19206
Parties: O. J. BARKER et al., Respondents, v. JOHN MASKELL et al., Defendants, JOHN MASKELL, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 101
Pages: 9–10

Head Matter:
[No. 19206.
Department Two.
January 3, 1894.]
O. J. BARKER et al., Respondents, v. JOHN MASKELL et al., Defendants, JOHN MASKELL, Appellant.
Chattel Mortgage—Furniture of Lodging-House—Purchase Price— Pleading—Ambiguity.—A mortgage upon the furniture and upholstery of a lodging-house is valid as between the parties to it, regardless of whether or not it is given for the purpose of securing the purchase price of the property therein described; and a demurrer to a complaint, in an action to foreclose the mortgage, on the ground that the complaint is ambiguous in that it fails to show that the mortgage was given to secure the payment of the purchase price of the property is properly overruled.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Hugh J. & William Crawford, for Appellant.
Albert M. Stephens, for Respondents.

Opinion:
De Haven, J.
The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage upon certain furniture and upholstery used in a lodging-house in the city of Los Angeles. The mortgage was executed to the plaintiffs by one of the defendants for the purpose of securing a promissory note made by himself and the other defendant.
We think it sufficiently appears from the complaint that the note was given for the purchase price of the property mortgaged, and, therefore, the mortgage is one to secure the purchase money of the articles mortgaged, and valid under section 2955 of the Civil Code. But even if it should be conceded that the complaint is ambiguous, and fails to show that the mortgage was given for the purpose of securing the purchase price of the property therein described, still the mortgage is valid as between the parties to it, and the complaint states a good cause of action from either point of view.
There was no error in overruling the demurrer.
Judgment affirmed.
Fitzgerald, J., and McFarland, J. concurred.