Bewick v. Muir
WILLIAM BEWICK v. WILLIAM MUIR
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Sharpstein (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 — Sharpstein
Sharpstein, J.
The general features of this case are the same as in No. 12437, ante, p. 368, which has just been decided. One of the defendants (Susman), who was alleged in the complaint to have some interest in or claim *374upon the property which was subject to the interest of the plaintiffs, filed an answer, in which he averred that he had a mortgage which had priority over the plaintiffs’ claims, and that he had commenced a suit to foreclose said mortgage, joining all the plaintiffs herein as defendants therein, and that said suit was then pending; and he annexed a copy of his complaint in such suit, and prayed for judgment as in said complaint. He also denied that the sums claimed by the plaintiffs were unpaid.
As has been stated in the companion case, the findings are insufficient upon the issue of payment, which issue arises upon the answer of this appellant. Upon a retrial, the decree in the foreclosure suit (if one has been obtained, as seems to be conceded) can be set up by supplemental answer, and' ilie question as to its effect tried and determined.
The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
McFarland, J., Paterson, J., Thornton, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.
Cited by
- California Portland Cement Co. v. Wentworth Hotel Co. Civ. No. 922. · 1911-07-28
- Berentz v. Kern King Oil & Development Co. · 1905-06-17
- Stimson Mill Co. v. Los Angles Traction Co. L.A. No. 1063. · 1903-10-29