Bartlett v. Cottle
COLUMBUS BARTLETT, Admr., etc. v. FRANKLIN D. COTTLE
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James D. Thornton (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 — Thornton
Thornton, J.
It iscontended that the judgment in this case ought not to stand, because the security was not valueless when the action was commenced. On an examination of the testimony, we are of opinion that the security was not without value at the time referred to. The respondent in his calculation of value of the security leaves out the value of the houses on the leased property (the security in question), which was testified to by Perrine, the lessor. This action on the note, then, cannot be maintained under the provisions of section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to this section, there can be but one action, and that of the character prescribed in it.
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.
Myrick, J., and Sharpstein, J., concurred.
Cited by
- Martin v. Becker S. F. 6122; S. F. 6106; S. F. 6300 · 1915-02-11
- Kinsel v. Ballou L.A. No. 1962. · 1907-08-20
- Moore v. Gould L.A. No. 1790. · 1907-08-19
- Woodward v. Brown Sac. 288 · 1897-12-15
- McKean v. German-American Savings Bank L. A. No. 255 · 1897-09-22
- Barbieri v. Ramelli No. 12816 · 1890-05-15
- Lavenson v. Standard Soap Co. No. 11609 · 1889-08-31
- Bull v. Coe 12055 · 1888-06-27