Wood v. Peterson Farms Co.

California Court of Appeal Jun 22, 1933 No. Docket No. 1204.Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's findings supported the judgment of foreclosure and that the appellant was estopped from challenging the validity of the mortgage.

Issues

Whether the findings of fact support the judgment of foreclosure on the judgment-roll alone.
Whether the appellant is estopped from challenging the validity of the mortgage execution.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The findings support the judgment and the same must be affirmed.”

“Having accepted title to the land, recognized the indebtedness, sold the land, authorized the sale by resolution, and having defaulted in the present action, the corporation itself is estopped to deny the validity of the mortgage”

“She not only had actual notice, but is estopped to question the proper execution of the mortgage”

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an action to foreclose a mortgage covering 220 acres of land situated in Kings County and given to secure two notes, each for the principal sum of $4,800. On June 4, 1927, the plaintiff agreed in writing .to sell the land in question to J. Y. Peterson and his wife for $12,570, the agreement providing that when $2,970 of the purchase price was paid the vendee might demand a deed and give back a mortgage securing the balance of $9,600, to be evidenced by two notes payable at certain named times. The sum of '$2,970 was paid by J. Y. Peterson by June, 1928, and during that month he demanded a deed. The plaintiff executed a deed conveying the premises to J. Y. Peterson and his wife and delivered the same to an abstract company which was handling an escrow in connection with the transaction. A few days later the plaintiff received back this deed and, at the request of J. Y. Peterson and the abstract company, furnished

[718]

another deed conveying the property to the Peterson Farms Company, a corporation, with instructions to deliver the same upon obtaining for her a first mortgage upon the property securing two notes for $4,800 each, payable on terms stated. This mortgage was recorded in Kings County by the abstract company on June 29, 1928. The mortgage and notes were signed “The Peterson Farms Company by J. Y. Peterson, Vice President”, the mortgage was acknowledged by J. Y. Peterson as vice-president of the corporation and the corporation seal was attached thereto.

About April 30, 1929, the Peterson Farms Company deeded the property in question to N. G. Perkins and A. Yoder. By a deed dated October 22, 1929, this property was conveyed by Perkins and Yoder and their wives to Cora Van Aernam Peters, one of the defendants herein. On May 19, 1930, this action was filed seeking to foreclose the mortgage referred to. The corporation defendant defaulted and the defendant Cora Van Aernam Peters filed an answer denying that the Peterson Farms Company had executed the mortgage in question, together with a cross-complaint seeking to quiet her own title to the property. Findings of fact and judgment and decree of foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff were entered and filed on December 29, 1930, and from this judgment, the defendant Cora Van Aernam Peters is prosecuting this appeal.

The reporter’s transcript in this case was never authenticated (see

Wood v. Peterson Farms Co.

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief