Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 8/31/1889

Lavenson v. Standard Soap Co.

Citations

  • 80 Cal. 245
  • 22 P. 184
  • 1889 Cal. LEXIS 898

Syllabus

<p>Mortgage—Impairment of Security—Removal of Fixtures—Action for.Damages—;Pleading. — An action for damages will lie in'favor of a mortgagee whose security is impaired by the removal of fixtures permanently attached to the realty, against the person or persons removing the same; and a complaint against the mortgagor and another defendant claiming to be, a purchaser of the fixtures, alleging that they removed such fixtures well knowing that they would thereby impair and render insufficient plaintiff’s security, and that it was thereby rendered insufficient, that the mortgagor is insolvent, and that after foreclosure of the mortgage, an unsatisfied personal judgment remains for a deficiency; states a cause of action.</p> <p>Id, —Concurrent Remedies. —The mortgagee has concurrent remedies by an action at law for damages, or by a suit in equity to restrain threatened waste, whereby the mortgage security is impaired.</p> <p>Fixtures — Appliances of Soap Factory.—A gun-metal digester, soap-kettles, boiler, and candle-machines, which are appliances of a permanent character, put into and attached to a building with the intention of using them for the making of soap and candles, for which purpose the premises were used, are fixtures, and form part of the realty, which pass with a grant of the re.al property and become subject to the lien of a mortgage, and do not pass by a bill of sale of the machinery and other personal property on the premises.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that a local school system is a political subdivision of the state
  • “The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the trial court’s ruling on the [defendant’s] motion to dismiss, accepting as true all well-pled material allegations in the complaint and resolving any doubts in favor of [the plaintiff].”
  • “The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the trial court’s ruling on the [defendant’s] motion to dismiss, accepting as true all well-pled material allegations in the complaint and resolving any doubts in favor of [the plaintiff].”
  • “The Court of Appeals review [s] de novo the trial court’s ruling on the [defendant’s] motion to dismiss, accepting as true all well-pled material allegations in the complaint and resolving any doubts in favor of [the plaintiff].”
  • “The Court of Appeals review[s] de novo the trial court’s ruling on the [defendant’s] motion to dismiss, accepting as true all well-pled material allegations in the complaint and resolving any doubts in favor of 3 and Sawnee EMCs (collectively, the “distribution” or “retail” EMCs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gibson

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.