Wilson v. Madison

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,528Published

Before: Thornton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a purchaser of land at an execution sale may maintain an action to quiet title even if the land is public land, and that a misrecital of the execution in an officer's deed does not invalidate the deed if the officer had authority to sell.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff can maintain an action to quiet title to land sold under execution when the underlying title is held by the United States Government.
Whether a misrecital of the execution in a constable's deed invalidates the purchaser's title.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The legislation of this State from the beginning has treated such possessions as that of Hatfield as legal and vendible under execution, and has protected the title of the purchaser, regardless of the fact that the land in controversy is really public land.”

“It may be regarded as settled in this State that a misrecital of the execution in the officer’s deed will not affect the validity of the deed if the officer had authority to sell.”

Synopsis

Action to Quiet Title—Public Land—Pbtob Possession.—In an action to quiet title, brought by the grantee in a constable’s deed made upon an execution sale, in an action against one in possession of the land, it appeared - from the plaintiff's evidence that the land was public land, and the Court granted a nonsuit on that ground. Held, that the Court erred; that the defendant, having shown no title whatever, could not rely upon an outstanding title in the United States.

Id.—Id.—Id.—The legislation of the State from the beginning has treated the possession of public land as legal, and as vendible under execution, and has protected the title of the purchaser.

Siibbiff’s Deed.—It may be regarded as settled in this State that the misrecital of the execution in an officer’s deed will not affect the validity of the deed, if the officer had authority to sell.

Id.—Retubn on Execution.—The title of a purchaser at an execution sale dogs not depend on the return on the execution.

Cboss-complaint—Action to Quiet Titlb.—In an action to quiet title, where the defendant relies upon title in himself, a cross-complaint is unnecessary; and, if one is filed, it will not entitle the defendant to have the issues arising thereon first tried.

Thornton, J.: James Wilson sued the defendants in the District Court for the County of San Diego, to quiet his title to a tract of land situate in that county. The defendant Madison answered and [6]set up a cross-complaint, to which pleading, last-mentioned plaintiff filed an answer. The defendant Tull suffered a default. When the plaintiff rested his case on the complaint, on motion of defendant Madison, the Court ordered a nonsuit, and from the judgment of nonsuit plaintiff brings an appeal to this Court.

The case was tried by the Court, a jury having been waived, and the plaintiff, to sustain the issues on his part, introduced the following evidence : The record from a Justice’s Court from Agua Caliente Township, County of San Diego, brought by one W. J. Grallaspy against A. Hatfield on a promissory note, summons with return of service on defendant, demurrer of defendant by attorney, and a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant for the sum of $28.50 and costs. This judgment was rendered and entered on the 6th of November, 1876, and on the same day, as appears fz’om the testimony, an execution in due foz’m of law was issued, which came to the hands of Thomas Bundy, constable, on which the following return was made:

“Deceived on the within execution the sum of $78jj;o for 8,600 pounds of jiotatoes at i cent, bid in by D. D. Bailey; and for 267 bushels of charcoal at 3 cents per bushel, bid in by D. D. Bailey; and for 20,900 pounds of hay at í cent per pound, bid in by W. N. Shaw. Deceived on the within execution $120 for the ranch advertised and sold to James Wilson on the L8tli day of Decembei’, 1876. Total received on the execution, $198f¿o. Total amount due on the execution, $2071f0. Balance due on the execution, This, the 10th day of December’, 1876. Thos. Bundy, Constable.”

The plaintiff also offered in evidence a certificate of sale of the property in controversy issued to him by the constable, bearing date the 18th of December, 1876, and a deed executed by the same officer to him on the 21st of J une, 1877. These two documents just mentioned contain the following recitals : That by virtue of an execution in the action above entitled, (Gallaspy v. Hatfield) tested the 18th day of Decembei', 1876, by which he was commanded to make.the amount of five dollars and 30-lOOtlis to satisfy the judgment in said action, with costs thereon, out of the personal property of A. Hatfield, the defendant in said action, and if sufficient personal property could not be [7]

Wilson v. Madison

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief