Harney v. Appelgate
Citations
- 57 Cal. 205
Syllabus
<p>Stbeet Assessjuent—Pabttes — Amendment—Pbaotioe.—In an action to enforce a street assessment against a lot in San Francisco, it appeared from the original complaint that all the defendants were joint owners of the lot, and, as such, necessary parties to the suit; but when the case was called for trial, the action was dismissed, on motion of the plaintiff, as to some of the defendants, and the complaint amended by striking their names from its caption. Hold, that if the effect of the amendment was to show that the dismissed defendants had no interest in the lot, then it was the right of the remaining defendants to amend their answer, and aver that the dismissed defendants did have an interest in the lot.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding owners who did not tender indebtedness secured by deed to secure debt were not entitled to set aside sale under power
- party's lack of personal liability for the underlying debt not an excuse for failing to tender
- “Appellants have made no tender of the indebtedness secured by the deed to secure debt and thus are not entitled to set aside the sale under power.”
- “chilling the bidding” is jury issue
- failure to mention senior lien
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Morrison
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.