Frazier v. Crowell (1877) · DecisionDepot

Frazier v. Crowell

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1877 No. No. 5486Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the defendant, holding that the trial court's finding that the defendant possessed a good and perfect title was sufficient to support the judgment regardless of the validity of the redemption proceedings.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings of fact support the judgment for the defendant in an action for ejectment.
Whether the recording of a certified copy of a justice court judgment was sufficient to create a lien prior to the Code of Civil Procedure.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The appeal is taken from the judgment; the findings of the Court below are not attacked, and the general question is whether the findings support the judgment which the defendant obtained below. We are of opinion that they do.”

“The action is ejectment, and the finding just recited is not attacked as being without support in the evidence.”

“We are satisfied with the judgment heretofore rendered, and the petition for a rehearing is denied.”

Synopsis

Finding of Fact in Ejectment.—In'ejectment, a finding that “the defendant has a good and iierfect title to the demanded premises ” supports a judgment for him, whether it is to he regarded as a finding of fact or conclusion of law.

Lien of Justice’s Judgment.—In order that a judgment, rendered by a Justice of the Peace since the adoption of the Code, may become a lien on the property of the judgment-debtor, “an abstract\ and not “a certified copy” of the same must be filed in the office of the County Recorder.

A purchaser at a Sheriff’s sale may take an assignment of judgments against the defendant in the execution. The payment by Crowell to the Sheriff did not effect a redemption. [401]She did not pay the McCracken judgment. Tile statute concerning redemptions must be strictly followed. (Dickenson, v. Gilliland, 1 Cowen, 498; People v. Coveil, 18 Wend. 593; People v. Sheriff of Broome, 19 Wend. 87 ; Waller v. Harris. 20 Wend. 555; Ex parte Raymond, 1 Denio, 272; Ex parte Peru Iron Company, 7 Cowen, 560.)

Birch & Griffith, for the Respondent.

Who are redemptioners is no longer an open question under the Code. This case is on all fours with and conclusively decided in Sharp v. Miller, 47 Cal. 84, 85.

By the Court : The appeal is taken from the judgment; the findings of the Court below are not attacked, and the general question is whether the findings support the judgment which the defendant obtained below. We are of opinion that they do. The ninth finding of fact is in the following words: “Ninth. That said defendant Helena Crowell, alias Golinski, has a good and perfect title to said property.” If it be claimed that this finding, though among the findings of fact, is in its substance a conclusion of law, what is to be said of the fourth finding, by which the plaintiff’s case is attemptéd to be supported ? That finding is as follows: “ Fourth. That at the time of said redemption, said McCracken judgment was in full force and unpaid, and a valid and subsisting lien upon the property described in the complaint.” Might not the existence of the lien be also characterized as a question of law? The McCracken judgment was rendered in the Court of a Justice of the Peace, and in order to operate a lien it was necessary that an abstract of the judgment should be filed in the office of the County Recorder. (Code Civil Procedure, sec. 900.) The finding in this respect (third) is, that “ a certified copy of said McCracken judgment was duly recorded in the office of the Recorder,” etc.

A “ certified ” copy is not an “ abstract,” and the statute (Ibid. 897) makes the distinction and prescribes the exact form in which the abstract is to be prepared. This is an innovation [402]

Frazier v. Crowell

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief