Stockwell v. McAlvay

[610]

CONREY, P. J.

B. C. Stockwell is the wife of V. E. Stockwell. In this action B. C. Stockwell, as plaintiff, filed her complaint against defendant B. D. McAlvay to quiet the title of the plaintiff in and to a certain parcel of land in the city of Los Angeles. She alleged that McAlvay claims some interest in said property by virtue of an execution levied thereon for the enforcement of a certain judgment against Y. E. Stockwell; that the defendant Traeger, sheriff of Los Angeles County, having levied upon said real property under said execution, had advertised the property for sale, and, unless restrained by order of court, would sell said property as the property of V. E. Stockwell, judgment debtor. Plaintiff prayed that her title be quieted against defendants, and that the sheriff be enjoined from proceeding further with said execution sale.

The defendants McAlvay and Traeger by answer alleged that said real property was, at all the times mentioned in the complaint, as well as at the time of the answer, the property of said Y. E. Stockwell, and further set up facts showing an existing judgment, an execution levy made against said real property, and that the judgment, execution and levy constituted a valid lien upon said property of Y. E. Stockwell. The said McAlvay, in addition to his answer, filed a cross-complaint against both the Stockwells and against R. P. Greenleaf and the Citizens Trust and Savings Bank of Los Angeles, whereby cross-complainant sought to bring in said additional parties, and to establish the validity and priority of his said judgment lien. An answer to the cross-complaint was filed by the two Stockwells and Green-leaf on November 5, 1925. Certain amendments to these pleadings were later filed, which do not require further consideration.

On the twenty-third day of January, 1926, Lulu S. Lee, having first obtained an order permitting her so to do, filed a complaint in intervention in said action. To this complaint the defendants B. C. Stockwell and Y. E. Stockwell demurred on various grounds; which demurrer was on February 23, 1926, sustained without leave to amend. Thereafter the court vacated that portion of its order denying leave to amend, and permitted the intervener to submit for its consideration an amended complaint in intervention. Thereupon “a proposed amended complaint in intervention