Cal. Loan & Trust Co. v. Hammell
Cal. Loan & Trust Co. v. Hammell
Opinion of the Court
Action to foreclose a mortgage. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appeals.
It appears that Cockens, who assumed to act as the agent of Robbins, the owner and holder of the note secured by the mortgage sought to be foreclosed in this action, in making the assignment thereof to plaintiff had no authority whatever to do so.
The evidence shows that the note in question was delivered to him by Robbins for collection only, with directions that the mortgage, the release of which he had previously, signed and acknowledged,, should be delivered upon the payment of the note; that the note was
Upon these facts, of which plaintiff had due notice at and prior to the alleged assignment, it is clear that no title passed to it thereby.
In addition to this, it is equally clear that the note was paid and the debt extinguished by the payment of the amount thereof as stated, which payment had theretofore been provided for and secured to plaintiff by the assignment to it, for that purpose, of the joint note and mortgage on other land executed by the maker of the note in question and his wife.
Judgment and order reversed.
McFarland, J., and De Haven, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Beatty, C. J., dissented from the order denying a hearing in Bank.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.