De Celis v. Porter
Synopsis
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiffs and from an order denying a new trial, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Howard, J.
Action to quiet title to an undivided thirteen-fourteenths of the land described in the complaint. The material facts of the case as found by the Court will appear from the following schedules of title:
respondents’ title.
1. The title of the estate of Eulogio F. de Celis, deceased, to the north half of the Rancho Ex-Mission of San Fernando, including the land in controversy—admitted.
2. Eulogio F. de Celis, Administrator of Eulogio de Celis, deceased, with C. Maclay. Agreement dated April 10, 1874.
By this agreement Eulogio F. de Celis, as administrator of his father’s estate, agrees to sell and convey to C. Maclay the portion of the ranch belonging to the estate, and the latter, besides agreeing to pay the purchase money specified, agrees to reconvey to Eulogio a portion of said rancho known as Section 33, township 3 IST., range 15 W., S. B. meridian (including the land in controversy).
3. E. F. de Celis, Administrator, etc., to C. Maclay. Deed dated August 31, 1874. Recorded Book 31, p. 119.
This deed, made under an order of the Probate Court, and in pursuance of the contract of April 10, 1874, purports to convey to the grantee the interest of the estate in the said rancho.
4. C. Maclay to George K. Porter. Deed dated September 12,1874. Recorded Book 31, p. 124.
George K. Porter to C. Maclay. Deed dated September 14, 1874. Recorded Book 31, p. 118.
The first of these deeds conveys to Porter all of Maclay’s interest in the rancho, and the latter reconveys to Maclay an undivided one quarter thereof.
5. George K. Porter arid C. Maclay to E. F. de Celis. Agreement dated September 10, 1874, modifying the agreement of' April 10,1874.
The original agreement of April 10, 1874, is for the conveyance of the whole of section 33. This agreement is for the conveyance of said section, excepting certain springs and the land adjoining, etc., to be afterwards surveyed.
6. Jose Miguel de Celis and Eulogio F. de Celis to George K. Porter. Deed dated September 8, 1874.
Pastor de Celis to George K. Porter. Deed dated September 24, 1874.
Fernando de Celis to’Maclay and Porter. Deed dated January 22,1876.
Porter and Maclay, plaintiffs, v. Josefa A. de Celis, Pedro de Celis, and Consuelo de Celis. Action to quiet title. Judgment dated September 2,1876.
These deeds were executed and the above action instituted for the purpose of perfecting the title conveyed to Maclay under the contract of April 10, 1874
The Court: This case was heard and decided by Department Two, and the following opinion was filed therein:
“ That E. F. de Cells held whatever of the legal title to the premises in controversy was conveyed to him by Porter and Maclay, in trust for the plaintiffs, is beyond question. The attachment and the execution sale were of his interest only. The rights of the plaintiffs were not thereby affected. 1 Upon a sale of real property the purchaser is substituted to, and acquires all. the right, title, interest, and claim of, the judgment debtor thereto.’ (Sec. 709, C. C. P.)”
After a hearing in bank, we are satisfied with the judgment of the Department. The findings show that E. F. de Celis held the land in controversy in trust for the plaintiffs, and that the defendant, as well as Hayes, his assignor, had notice of that fact. We think that the evidence is sufficient to support the findings, and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to a judgment.
The judgment and order are affirmed.
Boss, J.,being disqualified, did not participate in this decision.
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)