Knight v. Truett
Before: Cope
Synopsis
At Sheriff’s sale of premises in a foreclosure suit by plaintiff against R., plaintiff became the purchaser. During the six months succeeding the sale, C., acting as agent of defendants, occupied the premises, carrying on the business of a saloon. At the end of the six months, defendants, as mortgagees, redeemed: Held, that the defendants are tenants in possession within the two hundred and thirty-sixth section of the Practice Act, and must pay plaintiff for use and occupation for the six months.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Baldwin, J. and Field, C. J. concurring.
The plaintiff sues as purchaser at a sheriff’s sale to recover the value of the use and occupation of certain premises from the time of the sale until a redemption. The evidence upon the question [115]of occupation is somewhat conflicting, and the findings of the Court are therefore conclusive. We think the defendants must be regarded as tenants in possession within the meaning of the two hundred and thirty-sixth section of the Practice Act. McDevitt v. Sullivan (8 Cal. 592) and Harris v. Reynolds (13 Cal. 514) are decisive of this point.
The facts found by the Court entitle the plaintiff to recover, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.
See Kline v. Chase, infra.
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)