Mau, Sadler Co. v. G. Kearney

HENSHAW, J.

Plaintiff, having become the purchaser at execution sale of a farm belonging to defendant, which farm was encumbered by two mortgages, brought this independent action, seeking the appointment of a receiver to take and hold possession of, harvest, and sell the crop, and apply the proceeds in satisfaction of the judgment under which the execution sale was had.

The court granted the application for a receiver, and the single question involved in this appeal is whether the purchaser at such an execution sale is entitled to possession of the property sold, prior to the expiration of the period for redemption, as against the judgment debtor, or his successor in interest in possession. That he is not entitled to a receiver under these circumstances is squarely decided in

West

v.

Conant,

100 Cal. 233, approved in

Scott

v.

Hotchkiss,

115 Cal. 94, and again in

Purser

v.

Cady,

120 Cal. 214, in which last case it is declared that the right to possession is equally good in the successor in interest of the judgment debtor. The case of

Hill

v.

Taylor,

22 Cal. 191, relied upon by respondent, is

[507]

an exceptional case, as pointed out in

White

v.

White,

130 Cal. 599.

1