HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. Lopez

FOX, P. J.

The property with which we are here concerned is the same as that involved in

Arechiga

v.

Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles,

Civil No. 22714,

ante,

p. 657 [324 P.2d 973], also decided this day.

After the Housing Authority acquired the title to this property through the judgment in the condemnation suit, it conveyed said property to the city of Los Angeles. The deed to the city was recorded on September 27, 1955. The Arechigas ignored the demands of the city that they vacate the premises. In May, 1957, the trial court granted the city’s noticed motion for an order directing the issuance of a writ of possession. This motion was supported by an affidavit showing title in the city. The Areehigas did not file any affidavit in opposition. They have appealed from the order.

The Areehigas contend that the city was not entitled to a writ of possession since the city had been neither substituted as a party in the condemnation action nor assigned the judgment therein.

It is clear that the trial court has the power to issue a writ of possession to place the plaintiff in a condemnation suit in possession of the property condemned.

(Marblehead Land Co.

v.

Los Angeles County,

276 F. 305.) The question which then arises is whether the grant to the city gave it the same right to obtain a writ of possession.

In this connection it must be borne in mind that the Housing Authority obtained its title to the land in question by means of a judgment. Such title was the very essence of the judgment. When the Housing Authority conveyed that title to the city it thereby transferred everything it acquired by the judgment even though the judgment itself was not specifically assigned. The judgment was merely a muniment of the title which the Housing Authority acquired and transferred to the city. The judgment is analo

[663]