gno.law

Barton v. Maal

California Court of Appeal · Civ. 10857 · 1936-03-10 · Published · 12 Cal. App. 2d 353 · 55 P.2d 529 · 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1040

T. W. BARTON, Respondent, v. ORRIE D. MAAL, Appellant

Area
civil
Panel
Crail (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Crail

CRAIL, P. J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment against him foreclosing a mortgage. His contention is that the complaint upon which the action was based did not demand a foreclosure of the mortgage, that the judgment was entered against him upon his failure to appear in the action, and was therefore erroneous for the reason that the court was not authorized to grant relief in excess of that demanded in the complaint. The record on appeal shows clearly that there was no demand in the complaint for the foreclosure of the mortgage, and it is settled law that in a default case the relief granted cannot be greater in amount or different in kind than that prayed for. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 580;

Foley v. Foley, 120 Cal. 33 [52 Pac. 122, 65 Am. St. Rep. 147];

Brooks v. Forington, 117 Cal. 219 [48 Pac. 1073]; 18 Cal. Jur. 467.) Indeed the parties stipulate that the judgment ijiay be reversed and that costs on appeal of $47.30 may bei taxed against respondent. This stipulation is sufficient under section 954a of the Code of Civil Procedure to restore jurisdiction of the trial court over the subject matter of the judgment and a remittitur may issue forthwith.

Judgment reversed and costs taxed accordingly.

Wood, J., and Gould, J., pro few., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by