Bell v. Solomons

California Supreme Court Jan 29, 1904 No. S.F. No. 2737.Published

Before: Angellotti, Shaw, Van Dyke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the property held in trust by the defendant upon payment of the full amount of the secured debts and costs, despite the plaintiff's failure to prove her claim to absolute ownership.

Issues

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief when the court finds she holds only a partial interest in the property held in trust by the defendant.
Whether the court may grant relief consistent with the facts found even if the plaintiff requested a different measure of relief.
Whether the defendant is entitled to hold the property as security for the debts of both the plaintiff and a third party.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We think the court should not thus summarily have dismissed the plaintiff from its forum without any relief.”

“Plaintiff is therefore, upon the facts as claimed by defendant, entitled to tender to him the full amount due, and receive from him a conveyance of the property.”

“the court has power, under section 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to award plaintiff such relief as the facts warrant.”

Synopsis

Trust—Action to Compel Conveyance—Security for Indebtedness —Partial Interest of Plaintiff—Erroneous Dismissal.—In an action to compel a conveyance from a trustee who purchased real estate at a sheriff’s sale, in his own name, with money alleged to belong to plaintiff, and to have been paid by her agent, but which the court found to have been paid in part from plaintiff’s money and in part from money belonging to her alleged agent personally, and further found that the deed was taken by defendant as security for a note of the plaintiff to the defendant, and another note from plaintiff’s alleged agent to the defendant, and for cash advanced at the sale, it was error for the court upon such findings to dismiss the action without any relief to the plaintiff, though without prejudice to a subsequent action.

Id.—Bight of Plaintiff to Bbdeem and Iíeceive Conveyance—Bights of Alleged Agent not a Party—Defendant not Concerned.— The plaintiff is entitled to redeem the entire property and receive from defendant a conveyance to her of 'the property. The defendant not having made plaintiff’s alleged agent a party, and she not having concerned herself to become a party to the action, the defendant is not interested in any controversy that may arise between plaintiff and such third party with respect to the ownership of the money received by him, nor in their respective rights to the land as against each other, in ease of redemption by either. He is only entitled to hold the property conveyed to him until all the money secured thereby is paid.

Id.—Litigation between Plaintiff and Alleged Agent-*-Findings not Conclusive.—The findings of the court in this action, that the money with which the defendant purchased the property was partly the money of the plaintiff and partly that of her agent personally, and upon other matters in issue, will not be binding upon the plaintiff in any litigation between her and her alleged agent concerning their interests in the property or in the money advanced to purchase it.

Id.—-Costs—Absence of Tender.—Where the plaintiff made no tender of payment of the sums due to the defendant for which he holds the legal title as security, the costs of the action and of the appeal must be paid as a condition of the relief indicated.

Id.—Offset—Bents Beceived by Defendant.—It is not intended to decide that the plaintiff, if she redeem the property, is not entitled to a credit for any rents which the defendant may have received during the time he has been in possession, as an offset to the amount due upon the redemption.

Opinion

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment and from an order denying her motion for a new trial. We have examined the record with reference to the points urged in support of the appeal from the order denying her motion for a new trial and have concluded that the evidence, though not satisfactory, is sufficient to support the findings, and that no error is presented thereby which is material to the relief to which we think the plaintiff is entitled, and therefore the points urged upon that appeal need not be further considered.

The complaint alleges, in substance, that one Mary E. Pleasant, as the agent of the plaintiff, intrusted the defendant with a large sum of money belonging to the plaintiff; that with this money the defendant purchased a certain tract of land, described in the complaint, at sheriff's sale, in his own name, and took a certificate and, subsequently, a sheriff's deed therefor, conveying title to him; that he paid no money at the sheriff's sale other than money so intrusted to him by the plaintiff, except the sum of fifty dollars, which he advanced out of his own funds as part of the costs of the sale; that the defendant still holds the property in his own name, but, in fact, as trustee for the plaintiff, and that prior to the beginning of the action she tendered him the fifty dollars paid by him out of his own funds at the sheriff's sale, and demanded a conveyance of the property by him to her. The prayer is for a decree compelling the defendant to convey the property to the plaintiff upon the payment of the fifty dollars in question, and for such other and further relief as *Page 61 she may be entitled to in the premises. The answer denied many of the allegations of the complaint, and set up affirmatively that the defendant held the land as security for certain debts existing in his favor against the said M.E. Pleasant and the plaintiff respectively. The court found that the defendant purchased the land with money furnished to him for that purpose by Mary E. Pleasant, except the sum of fifty dollars which he paid out of his own funds; that Mary E. Pleasant at the times in question was to a considerable degree managing and conducting the affairs of the plaintiff and handling money belonging to her; that the sum so furnished amounted to eleven thousand dollars, of which five thousand one hundred dollars belonged to the plaintiff and five thousand nine hundred dollars to Mary E. Pleasant; that defendant did not know that any of the money belonged to plaintiff; that it was agreed between plaintiff and Mary E. Pleasant at the time he purchased the property at the sheriff's sale that he would hold the same in trust, and that, if a redemption was made, the redemption money should be applied toward the payment of certain notes held by him against the plaintiff and Mary E. Pleasant, respectively. If there was no redemption, then he should procure a deed for the property in his own name and dispose of the same and apply the proceeds toward the payment of the notes. Other facts and details were put in issue and found by the court, but they are not material to the point to be decided. Upon the facts admitted and found a decree was made, declaring the plaintiff not entitled to any relief against the defendant, but that the judgment should be without prejudice to any subsequent action by her to establish her rights in the premises after payment to the defendant of the several amounts to him due on the notes and fifty dollars advanced by him out of his own funds.

Bell v. Solomons

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Opinion

Concurrence

AI Brief