Penryn Fruit Co. v. Sherman-Worrell Fruit Co.
Before: Chipman
Synopsis
Trust-Deed—Sale—Relation of Title—Unsevered Fruit Crop— Chattel Mortgage.—The title of a purchaser at a sale under a deed of trust relates back to the date of the deed of trust, and the conveyance to him thereunder passes title to an unsevered fruit crop upon trees growing on the land, which is part of the realty; and where the purchaser takes possession, he is entitled to gather the fruit crop, as against a chattel mortgage executed subsequent to the deed of trust and prior to the sale.
Id.—Severance of Growing Crop—Delivery—Effect of Chattel Mortgage—Notice of Trust Deed.—The chattel mortgage, whatever effect it may have as between the parties thereto, cannot operate as against the purchaser under the trust-deed as a severance of the growing crop from the land, or as a delivery of the crop. The mortgagee took with knowledge of the deed of trust, and that the purchaser under it, when the claim of the creditor should be enforced, would take an absolute title to the land, as of the date of the trust-deed.
CHIPMAN, C.
The Sherman-Worrell Fruit Company (hereafter called the Sherman Company) did not appear in
[644]
the action. Defendant Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Savings Bank (hereafter called the bank) demurred to the complaint; the demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff declining to amend, defendant the bank had judgment dismissing the action from which this appeal is taken.
It appears from the complaint that on December 8, 1897, R. B. and Dan T. Sherman, predecessors in interest of the Sherman Company, were owners of certain land planted to fruit-trees in Placer County; on that day they executed to the bank their promissory note for forty-five hundred dollars, and to secure payment of same, executed also on that day their trust-deed conveying the property to certain trustees named in the deed, with power to sell and execute a deed to the purchaser; under this power the trustees sold the property, and on June 15, 1901, a deed of said property was executed and delivered to the bank as purchaser; the bank went into immediate possession of the land and the fruit-crop growing thereon. It further appears that the Sherman Company executed to plaintiff a chattel mortgage on the fruit-crop growing on a portion of the land, to secure a loan of three hundred dollars, made to the Sherman Company by plaintiff, and also future advances, which plaintiff alleges was in fact executed and delivered March 11, 1901, but which, by mutual mistake, read March 11, 1900, and it is sought among other things to correct this mistake, but it is not alleged that the bank had any knowledge of this mistake; that the sum of one hundred and twenty-five dollars was advanced to the Sherman Company by plaintiff under the terms of the chattel mortgage prior to said trustees’ sale; that the Sherman Company continued in possession of the land until the bank took possession under its trustees’ deed; that the Sherman Company has failed to pay said sums, or any part thereof, and refuses to deliver said fruit to plaintiff, and is insolvent; that the bank is in possession of said fruit-crop, and refuses to permit the Sherman. Company or plaintiff to harvest the same, and claims possession and title thereto as against plaintiff; that plaintiff would have derived a profit of one thousand dollars from said fruit if it had been permitted to harvest it; that by the acts of the bank plaintiff has been further damaged in the sum of four hundred and twenty-five dollars, with interest from March 11, 1901, at nine per
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)