Hooker v. Reas
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
Where property is mortgaged to secure two notes falling due at different periods, and the mortgage is foreclosed by suit upon the note first falling due, and then, after the period for redemption has passed, but before the Sheriff has executed his deed to the purchaser, this first note, or rather the judgment thereon, is paid: Held, that the payment of this note effected the redemption of the property, and left it subject to the mortgage to secure the second note.
Held,, further, that the lien of the mortgage for the second note could not be displaced by a sale under prior incumbrances—mechanics’ liens—in proceedings to which the holder of the second note was not a party.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.
The mortgage foreclosure for the first note due did not vest a title in the purchaser until the period of redemption had passed, and a deed of the Sheriff under the foreclosure sale. But before this the debt was paid, and the effect was the redemption of the premises. This left them subject to the mortgage for the second note, the lien for which was not displaced by the sale under junior incumbrances in proceedings to which the respondent, the holder of the second note, was not a party. Even if this question has not been determined by the judgment of the Court below, referred to in the transcript, it seems to be a plain principle which fully warrants the decree below, which is affirmed.
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)