Hutton v. Chapman

THE COURT.

This action was instituted by the plaintiff to quiet her title to certain real property situate in the county of Los Angeles. The court found the allegations of the complaint to be true and entered judgment as prayed

[514]

for. From this judgment the defendants prosecuted their appeal.

It appears that a mortgage had been executed upon the said real property at a time prior to the commencement of this action to quiet title which is based in part upon respondent’s asserted redemption of the property after foreclosure sale. The foreclosure sale was conducted by an elisor regularly appointed by the superior court wherein the foreclosure proceedings had been litigated. In this connection the court in this action found, among other things, that “it is true that prior to the expiration of the time for redemption the plaintiff herein became seized and possessed of the title to said real estate and was desirous of redeeming said real estate from the lien of said mortgage and the said judgment and decree and the said sale. That she was ignorant of and not informed of the appointment of said Garroway as elisor and did not know that a sale had been made by him as elisor and did, on the 25th day of November, 1922, apply to Messrs. Charles Lantz, W. P. Hiatt and F. C. Hubert, attorneys for said William Chapman, at their office at 314 Wilcox building, city of Los Angeles, to make the said redemption. That for the purpose of such redemption and that the plaintiff herein might receive a certificate of redemption it was agreed by and between Charles S. Conner, attorney for the plaintiff herein and the attorneys for said William Chapman, aforesaid, at their office aforesaid, that the attorney for the plaintiff, Kathryn W. Hutton and the defendant William Chapman should meet on the 27th day of November, 1922, at the office of the sheriff of said Los Angeles county in the city of Los Angeles and perfect said redemption and the plaintiff, by and through her said attorney, Charles S. Conner, at the time agreed upon and at the office of said sheriff as agreed upon, appeared for the purpose of said redemption, but the attorney for the said defendant, William Chapman, did not appear as agreed or at all and the plaintiff, acting by and through her attorney duly authorized thereunto the said Charles S. Conner and being ignorant as to the whereabouts of the said Garroway applied to this honorable court, to wit: Frank R. Willis, Judge thereof as to how and in what manner such redemption might be made and the said court, on the 27th day of November, 1922, made and entered its order of redemp