Mascarel v. Raffour
Cases that cite this one
24 later published cases cite this decision.
- Widmann v. Hammack (Wash. 1920)
- Dupuy v. Western State Bank (Neb. 1985)
- Carnation Co. v. Kristal (In re Kristal) (United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of The Ninth Circuit 1984)
- Bodner v. Brickner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1968)
- Layden v. . Layden (N.C. 1947)
- Long v. W. P. Devereux Co. (Mont. 1930)
- Craig v. Burns (Mont. 1923)
- Citizens' Sav. Bank of San Diego v. Bennett (Cal. 1920)
- Red Deer Oil Development Co. v. Huggins (Tex. App. 1913)
- Newhall v. Bank of Livermore (Cal. 1902)
- Murphy v. Superior Court (Cal. 1902)
- Dooly v. Eastman (Wash. 1902)
- Bank of Ukiah v. Reed (Cal. 1901)
- Gerig v. Loveland (Cal. 1900)
- Stockton Savings & Loan Society v. Harrold (Cal. 1900)
- Campan v. Molle (Cal. 1899)
- De Weese v. Smith (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri 1899)
- Hildreth v. Williams (Cal. 1893)
- Grangers' Business Ass'n v. Clark (Cal. 1890)
- Lavenson v. Standard Soap Co. (Cal. 1889)
- Hall v. Arnott (Cal. 1889)
- Bull v. Coe (Cal. 1888)
- Monroe v. Fohl (Cal. 1887)
- Laine v. Francis (Mo. Ct. App. 1884)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The action is to foreclose three mortgages, two of which are upon the same parcel of land and none other, while the third is also upon that parcel and an adjoining parcel. The decree forecloses the three mortgages upon the first parcel; but omits to foreclose the third mortgage on tho second parcel; and orders a personal judgment against the mortgagor for the deficiency, if there be one. The mortgagor appeals, and makes the point that under section 726 of the Code of Civil Procedure there can be no personal judgment against the defendant for the deficiency until the mortgage security has been entirely exhausted. But by the foreclosure the mortgage is merged in the judgment, and a new action could not be maintained to foreclose the mortgage as to the omitted lot. A mortgage cannot be foreclosed by piecemeal in that way, and the legal effect of omitting from the decree of foreclosure a portion of the mortgaged premises is a waiver of the mortgage lien as to that portion. The mortgagor, therefore, cannot complain of the decree.
But the court erred in the amount awarded to the plaintiff for counsel fees under the mortgage of March 10, 1873. The proper amount was two hundred and sixty-five dollars and seventy cents, being five per cent, on the principal and
Remittitur forthwith.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.