History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ferguson v. Miller
6 Cal. 402
Cal.
1856
Check Treatment
Mr. Chief Justice Murray, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt concurred.

Miller having purchased from Parks and entered into possession, may be regarded as a mortgagee in possession, and as such had a legal title against the whole world, subject to the rights of the mortgagor. If Miller had been in possession, simply relying on that possession, it is evident that his title would have been sufficient to warrant him in mortgaging the premises. IIow, then, can the fact that he was also a mortgagee, weaken the strength of that possession ? The mechanics who erected the house for Miller, were bound by the previous outstanding mortgages executed by him. It was not their province to determine the legality of his recorded title, but having contracted with him in the face of these encumbrances, they are postponed until they shall be first paid off.

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Ferguson v. Miller
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jul 1, 1856
Citation: 6 Cal. 402
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.