Booth v. Taylor

[349]

JAMISON, J.,

pro

tem.

Plaintiff brought this action to quiet title to certain real property. The defendant Wilford M. Taylor answered the complaint, denying the ownership of plaintiff, and set up a cross-complaint alleging ownership in himself, asking that the title to said property be quieted in him. Judgment went for plaintiff and cross-defendant. From this judgment defendant Taylor appealed. The facts of this case are not disputed and are as follows:

Appellant, desiring to borrow $2,000 from the Hollywood National Bank, requested respondent to indorse his note to said bank for that sum. Respondent indorsed the said note and to secure him for same appellant executed and delivered to him a deed to the property in controversy upon respondent’s agreement to reconvey said property to appellant upon payment of the said note, and in the event that respondent was compelled to pay said note, then appellant was given one year after such payment by respondent to redeem the said property. Respondent was compelled to pay the said note and after the expiration of the one year from the date of said payment he took possession of said real property. Thereafter, on October 2, 1929, he commenced this action.

On July 17, 1930, the trial court made findings substantially covering the foregoing statement of facts and entered an interlocutory decree in which it was provided that there should be an accounting to determine the amount due and owing to plaintiff upon the said agreement and giving defendant until June 10, 1931, to pay same. Thereafter, on February 10, 1931, the said appellant and respondent agreed, in open court, that the amount due and owing to respondent from appellant was the sum of $2,500 and thereafter, the appellant having failed to pay the same as provided in the said interlocutory decree, the court on June 23, 1931, made its final decree quieting respondent’s title to said property.

Appellant contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the decree quieting the title in favor of respondent, and therefore the said decree is void on its face. In support of this contention he cites authorities to the effect that the equitable owner of real property cannot