Frates v. Sears
California Supreme Court
144 Cal. 246 (1904)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Joseph Sears (defendant) owned a piece of real property. Sears issued a first mortgage on the property to J. B. Redfield (defendant) and a second mortgage to Ms. Frates (plaintiff). Sears defaulted on his obligation to Redfield, and Redfield initiated foreclosure proceedings. Redfield failed to include Frates as a party in his action. Redfield completed the foreclosure and purchased the property himself at the sale. Years later, after the statute of limitations had lapsed for Redfield to bring any foreclosure actions attributable to his mortgage, Frates initiated an action to foreclose her mortgage on the property. Frates argued before the trial court that, because of the statute of limitations, Redfield could assert no interest in the property. Effectively, Frates argued that she should be able to foreclose on the property as if Sears’s mortgage to Redfield never existed. The trial court allowed Redfield and Sears to introduce the judgment from Redfield’s previous foreclosure action as evidence that Redfield held an interest in the property. Frates appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gray, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
