From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blythe v. Lamberth

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Feb 4, 1919
39 Cal.App. 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

Opinion

Civ. No. 2336.

February 4, 1919.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John M. York, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

E. B. Coil and D. H. McDonald for Appellant.

R. W. Richardson for Respondent.


This is an appeal from the judgment. The sole contention made is that the holder of a trust deed given to secure a lien upon real property, after exhausting the remedy by sale and finding that a deficiency exists, may not proceed by action to recover the balance due upon the promissory note. This point was directly decided, long before this appeal was taken, against the contention here urged. ( Sacramento Bank v. Copsey, 133 Cal. 663, [85 Am. St. Rep. 242, 66 P. 8, 205]; Kraft Co. v. Bryan, 140 Cal. 73, [ 73 P. 745].)

The appeal is without the slightest merit and should not have been taken.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, and, it appearing that the appeal was made for delay, it is ordered that the respondent have and recover from the appellant the sum of one hundred dollars as damages.

Conrey, P. J., and Shaw, J., concurred.


Summaries of

Blythe v. Lamberth

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Feb 4, 1919
39 Cal.App. 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
Case details for

Blythe v. Lamberth

Case Details

Full title:MARGARET E. BLYTHE, Respondent, v. ROBERT N. LAMBERTH, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One

Date published: Feb 4, 1919

Citations

39 Cal.App. 583 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
179 P. 533

Citing Cases

Hatch v. Security-First Nat. Bank

Such an action is required where the creditor seeks a personal judgment for the unpaid balance due upon an…