Blythe v. Lamberth
Margaret E. Blythe v. Robert N. Lamberth
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County
- Trial judge
- John M. York
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James (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
This is an appeal from the judgment. The sole contention made is that the holder of a trust deed given to secure a lien upon real property, after exhausting the remedy by sale and finding that a deficiency exists, may not proceed by action to recover the balance due upon the promissory note. This point was directly decided, long before this appeal was taken, against the contention here urged. (Sacramento Bank v. Copsey, 133 Cal. 663, [85 Am. St. Rep. 242, 66 P. 8, 205]; Kraft Co. v. Bryan,140 Cal. 73, [73 P. 745].)
The appeal is without the slightest merit and should not have been taken.
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, and, it appearing that the appeal was made for delay, it is ordered that the respondent have and recover from the appellant the sum of one hundred dollars as damages.
Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred. *Page 584
Cites, in this corpus
- Herbert Kraft Co. v. Bryan Sac. No. 847. · 1903-09-01
- Sacramento Bank v. Copsey Sac. No. 835. · 1901-08-13
Cited by
- Hatch v. Security-First National Bank L. A. 17529; L. A. 17530; L. A. 17531; L. A. 17532 · 1942-01-12