Green v. Clark
Before: Rhodes
Synopsis
Finding of Facts.—If the Court makes a finding of facts upon some of the issues, and the appellant neither excepts to the finding as defective nor moves for a new trial, he cannot attack the finding either on the ground that it does not find all the facts in issue or is unsupported by the evidence.
Effect of Deed on After-Acquired Title.—If the owner of land conveys the same by a deed of bargain and sale, and afterwards purchases the land at a Sheriff's sale made on the foreclosure of a mortgage given before his sale, the title he acquires by the purchase at Sheriff's sale immediately inures to the benefit of his grantee.
Purchaser at Sheriff’s Sale.—The interest which a purchaser of land at Sheriff’s sale acquires by his purchase may be conveyed by him by deed at any time before the Sheriff’s deed is given.
Conveyance of Title Acquired at Sheriff’s Sale.—If one purchases land upon which there is a mortgage given by his grantor, and the mortgage is afterwards foreclosed, and the grantor buys at Sheriff’s sale, and before a Sheriff’s deed is given quitclaims to his grantee, the quitclaim carries the interest acquired at the Sheriff’s sale and destroys the effect of the same, and if the Sheriff afterwards gives a deed to the purchaser the deed is void.
Idem.—If one who has purchased land at Sheriff's sale quitclaims his interest in the same before a Sheriff's deed is given, the quitclaim is equivalent to an assignment of the Sheriff's certificate of sale.
Purchase by Agent with Money of Principal.—If one acts as the agent of another, and uses his money in making a purchase of land at a Sheriff’s sale, but buys in his own name, the interest he acquires by the purchase vests in equity in his principal.
By the Court, Rhodes, J.: . Ejectment to recover a lot of land in the Town of Visalia. The Court found certain facts in issue, and ordered judgment [593]for the defendant. The plaintiff neither excepted to the finding as defective, nor moved for a new trial, and therefore he cannot attack the finding on the ground either that it does not state all the facts in issue, or that it is contrary to or unsupported by the evidence. The statement on appeal serves no purpose whatever, except to present and explain one exception, which will hereafter be noticed. The evidence therein contained cannot be looked into for the purpose of reviewing the findings, nor can it be considered in determining whether the Court has drawn from all the facts in the case the correct conclusions of law. The decision upon both points are too numerous and uniform to need citation.
Russell and Poindexter, having purchased the lot and executed a mortgage to secure a part of the purchase money, conveyed the lot to Baker and Thompson, with covenants of warranty against the mortgage, and soon thereafter Thompson conveyed to Baker. The mortgage was foreclosed and the property sold to Russell, and he received the Sheriff’s deed therefor, and thereafter conveyed the property to the plaintiff. After the foreclosure sale, but before the execution of the Sheriff’s deed, Bussell by quitclaim deed conveyed the premises to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also by quitclaim deed conveyed the same to Baker. The defendant claims through Baker.
The plaintiff offered to prove “ that the money used by Russell, the purchaser at the Sheriff’s sale, was the money of plaintiff, and that Russell purchased as the agent of Green the plaintiff,” and the evidence was excluded. Under the operation of section thirty-three of the Act concerning conveyances, all the right, title and interest acquired by Russell by the purchase at the Sheriff’s sale or by means of the Sheriff’s deed, vested in Baker. (Clarke v. Baker, 14 Cal. 612.) The object of the plaintiff in offering the evidence was to intercept the title in transitu, or, more accurately speaking, to show that the title passing by the Sheriff’s sale and conveyance, though [594]nominally vesting in Russell, really passed to the plaintiff, because Russell was a mere naked trustee for the plaintiff.
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)