Skip to main content
· 10/23/1890

Campbell v. West

Citations

  • 86 Cal. 197
  • 24 P. 1000
  • 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1002

Syllabus

<p>Judicial Notice — Ex Officio Clerk of Superior Court — Filing of Complaint by County Cleric — Indorsement — Surplusage. — The court will take judicial notice of the fact that the comity clerk is ex officio clerk of the superior court, and a complaint indorsed in the superior court, and filed by such clerk as “county clerk,” will be regarded as filed in the superior court. The'placing of the word “county” before the word “clerk” will be treated as surplusage, and will not defeat the effect of the indorsement.</p> <p>Id. — Location of Lands — Government Survey —Designation by Name .— Private Survey. — Judicial notice will be taken of county boundaries and of the location of lands described by government subdivisions, as by township, range, and section, and the legal subdivisions thereof; but such notice will not be taken of the location of lands designated simply by name or by reference to a private survey.</p> <p>Foreclosure of Mortgage — Venue — Jurisdiction — Pleading — Evidence— Findings — Recital in Decree. — In an action brought to foreclose a mortgage, it is necessary, to give the court jurisdiction to enter a decree of foreclosure, for the plaintiff to allege and prove that the land sought to be foreclosed is situated in the county in which suit is brought; and in the absence of an allegation of such fact in the complaint, the plaintiff is not entitled to prove it; nor can a finding or recital in the decree that the land is situated in such county he supported in the absence of the necessary averment in the complaint.</p> <p>Id. — New County ■—Description of Lands in Mortgage — Pleading — Finding. — A complaint to foreclose a mortgage which describes the lands as situated in a county out of which a new county has been formed since the date of the mortgage, but which contains no description identifying the lands as being located in the new county in which the action is brought, is insufficient to sustain a finding that the land is situated therein.</p> <p>Id

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that the trial court was required to make certain written findings of fact even if the deviation from the presumptive amount of child support is based on “shared custody”
  • presumption of regularity does not apply where trial court failed to make written findings mandated by statute
  • final order reversed where “the superior court awarded a discretionary downward deviation in the amount of child support, but failed to comply with the appropriate statutory requirements,” including OCGA § 19-6-15 (m) (1)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Fox

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.