Head v. Fordyce

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1860Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the findings were insufficient to determine the validity of the defendant's lien or the plaintiff's claim to quiet title, necessitating a remand for further proceedings.

Issues

Whether a bill to quiet title will lie against a claim that clouds the plaintiff's title.
Whether the defendant has a valid lien on the property enforceable against the plaintiff's title.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The plaintiff has a right to be quieted in his title whenever any claim is made to real estate of which he is in possession, the effect of which claim might be litigation or a loss to him of the property.”

“The findings, therefore, are insufficient to enable us to pass on the question, whether Fordyce has any lien on the cabins, aqueducts, flumes, etc.”

Synopsis

F., defendant, began suit against the Volcano Water and Mining Company to subject to sale the ditch of that name, including aqueducts, flumes, culverts, dams, cabins, etc., in enforcement of a mechanic’s lien. Subsequently, the ditch, etc., was sold on a judgment in favor of one Harris and purchased by S., from whom plaintiff, as judgment creditor of the company, redeemed, and in due time received the Sheriff’s deed. Afterwards F. had a decree directing a sale of the ditch, etc., to satisfy his lien. Plaintiff sues to quiet title; alleging that F.’s decree is fraudulent; that he had no lien; and that be is about enforcing the decree, which is a cloud on plaintiff’s title : Held, that, aside from any question of fraud, the action lies; that the existence of a decree, founded upon proceedings taken prior to plaintiff’s title, and seeking to condemn the property by virtue of an asserted lien older than such title, would be a cloud upon that title.

The statute, (Pr. Act, sec. 254) giving a right of action to a party in possession of real estate to determine adverse claims, does not confine the remedy to the case of an adverse claimant setting up a legal title, or even an equitable title; but the statute embraces every description of claim whereby the plaintiff might be deprived of the property, or its title be clouded, or its value bo depreciated, or whereby the plaintiff might be incommoded or damnified by the assertion of an outstanding title already held or to grow out of the adverse pretension.

Plaintiff has a right to be quieted in his title whenever any claim is made to real estate of which he is in possession, the effect of which claim might be litigation or a loss to him of the property.

In this case it was not necessary that the bill should aver that plaintiff had no notice at the time of his purchase under the Harris sale of F.’s proceedings to enforce his lien. Such notice is not presumed.

Under our statute, the mere pendency of a suit does not charge the purchaser of the subject matter of the suit as a purchaser pendente lite at common law. A notice of lis pendens must be filed or appear of record.

In this case plaintiff cannot set aside the decree of F. as a cloud upon his title without showing affirmatively that F. had no claim on the property, or any right to subject it, or any part of it; and as the findings do not show any particular description of the aqueducts, flumes, cabins, etc., their value, nor the value of the materials furnished, nor that F.’s claim was solely for furnishing materials for building the cabins, flumes, etc., the Court cannot pass on the question of F.’s lien.

Query: Whether a flume is a “ superstructure ” within the Mechanic’s Lien Act of 1856.

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.

This was a bill filed by the respondent, asserting title to a certain ditch in his possession, and praying that a pretended claim to it on the part of appellant, defendant below, may be declared invalid. This claim, the bill asserts, is fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff. The bill charges that Fordyce commenced an action against the Volcano Water and Mining Company for a large sum of money, to subject to sale the ditch of that name, including aqueducts, flumes, culverts, dams, water gates, cabins and appurtenances, in enforcement of a certain lien alleged by him to be taken and held against this property by virtue of the Act of April 9th, 1856, in reference to mechanic’s liens. Subsequently, a sale was made of this property under judgment in favor of one Harris against the Volcano Company. This property was sold, and purchased by one Siger; and Head, the plaintiff below, regularly redeemed it by force of a judgment rendered after this judgment of Harris; and, in due course, received a Sheriff’s deed for the premises, which was recorded. That afterwards, and when the Volcano Company had no interest in the property, the defendant Fordyce recovered judgment in the suit first stated ; that one Rose, the president of the company, colluding with and being interested in the claim of Fordyce, procured or suffered this judgment in the Fordyce suit for the sum of $8,000, which judgment directed the sale and foreclosure of the property to satisfy the judgment and enforce the lien therein declared. The bill asserts, that the company were not indebted in this sum, and that the plaintiff had no lien on the property for this amount. The bill also charges that Rose had no authority from the company to agree to judgment in the proceedings before set out; that Fordyce is about enforcing the [151]decree of foreclosure ; and that it is a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title.

The answer denies the fraud and collusion; and the finding of the Judge below is, that this charge in the bill was unfounded in this respect.

Two main questions are made : Whether this bill will lie. 2. Whether the defendant, Fordyce, has any claim under his judgment to enforce his lien, as against the plaintiff in this action.

Apart from any charges of fraud, it would seem that the existence of a decree founded upon proceedings taken prior to the title of the plaintiff, and seeking to condemn the property by virtue of an asserted lien older than plaintiff’s title, would be a cloud upon that title. The statute giving this right of action to the party in possession, does not confine the remedy to the case of an adverse claimant setting up a legal title, or even an equitable title; but the act intended to embrace every description of claim whereby the plaintiff might be deprived of the property, or its title clouded, or its value depreciated, or whereby the plaintiff might be incommoded or damnified by the assertion of an outstanding title already held or to grow out of the adverse pretension. The plaintiff has a right to be quieted in his title whenever any claim is made to real estate of which he is in possession, the effect of which claim might be litigation or a loss to him of the property.

Head v. Fordyce

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief