Case Name: MacNEIL, Appellant, v. WARD, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1883-04-20
Citations: 2 Cal. Unrep. 174
Docket Number: No. 8882
Parties: MacNEIL, Appellant, v. WARD, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 2
Pages: 174–174

Head Matter:
MacNEIL, Appellant, v. WARD, Respondent.
No. 8882;
April 20, 1883.
Foreclosure of Mortgage.—A Judgment in a Foreclosure Suit Does not Fail for not directing the docketing of judgment for a deficiency.
Foreclosure of Mortgage.—A Judgment in a Foreclosure Suit Does not Fail for not adjudging expressly the defendant’s personal liability to' the plaintiff, if such an adjudging is to be inferred from it.
APPEAL from Superior Court, Los Angeles County.
R. M. Widney for appellant; W. P. Gardner for respondent.

Opinion:
THORNTON, J.
The judgment in this case is not amenable to the criticism of counsel for appellant, that it is erroneous because there is no direction in it that a judgment be docketed for deficiency. In this respect it (the judgment) accords with Leviston v. Swan, 33 Cal. 480, where the question is considered and correctly determined.
The only point in which the judgment seems to be defective is in not expressly adjudging that the defendant Ward is personally liable to the plaintiff for the money found to be due. This is inferentially done.
The court below is directed on the going down of the remittitur to amend the judgment by inserting words remedying this defect, and as thus modified the judgment will stand affirmed.
We concur: Sharpstein, J.; Myriek, J.