Central Pacific Railroad v. Creed
Before: McKee
Synopsis
Judgment — Defects and Irregularities. —Mere defects or irregularities in the process or proceedings, against a party not objecting to them, do not affect the validity of a judgment in the case, or the rights of the parties to it; and a plaintiff in whose favor such a judgment is entered cannot question it.
Foreclosure Sale—Setting aside—Inadequacy of Price.—A foreclosure sale will not be set aside for mere inadequacy in the price for which the property was sold.
Id.—Surprise—Negligence—Offer to Return Purchase Price__ Such a sale, if fair and regular upon its face, will not be set aside on the ground of surprise, unless the party claiming to have been surprised was without fault or negligence, and promptly offered to return the purchase-money.
Id.—Circumstances not Constituting Surprise.—The sale in question • was had on the 22d of December, 1884, under a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff on the 10th of October, 1884. The plaintiff knew of the time and place of sale, but neglected to give any instructions in reference thereto until the day preceding the sale, when it telegraphed to its agent and wrote the sheriff offering to purchase the property for the amount of the judgment and costs, and instructing them to make a bid to that effect at the sale. By reason of atmospheric conditions, neither the telegram nor letter was received by the parties to whom they were sent until after the sale. The sale was made to the respondent for a less price than that offered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff received the purchase-money, and kept it for five months, when, without offering to return the money, it moved to set aside the sale on the ground of surprise. Held, that the motion was properly denied.
McKee, J. In this ease, the plaintiff in the action had appealed from a judgment in its favor, and from an order of refusal to set aside the judgment and an execution sale of land thereunder.
The judgment appealed from was entered on the 10th of October, 1884, against the defendant, Creed, upon a default entered against him for not answering. By its terms, the judgment provided for the sale of a tract of land containing 159 acres to pay the sum of $2,995, which the court found to be due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff upon a contract for the purchase of the land. Under the judgment the land was sold at sheriff's sale on the 22d of December, 1884, to A. D. Logan.
Seven months after the rendition of the judgment, and five months after the sale of the land, the plaintiff’s attorney applied, upon notice to the purchaser, to set aside the judgment, upon the ground “ that the summons in the action was defective and irregular,” and set aside the sale upon the ground “ that it was made to the prejudice and exclusion of the plaintiff”
The court properly denied the application to set aside the judgment. Mere defects or irregularities in the process or proceedings of a judgment, against .a party who does not object to them, do not affect the validity of the judgment or the rights of the parties to it. A plaintiff in whose favor such a judgment is entered has no right ■ to question it. As to him, it is either valid or void. If valid, it is a final determination of his rights. If void, it does not affect his rights, and he may proceed to enforce them by any available remedy.
In the proceedings instituted by the plaintiff, the court had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action and of the parties; the judgment pronounced in the action was therefore valid; its validity is unquestioned by the defendant; as to him it stands in full force, unreversed and unappealed from; it is therefore final and conclusive [499]as to the parties; and the plaintiff, at whose instance it was taken, has no right to appeal from it. One in whose favor a valid judgment has been rendered cannot be considered “ a party aggrieved by it.” (Ely v. Frisbie, 17 Cal. 250; Sleeper v. Kelly, 22 Cal. 456.)
The sale of the land took place in Colusa on the 22d of December, 1884. The plaintiff knew of the time and place of sale, and one of its agents, who resided in Colusa, on the 20th of December, 1884, sent to the plaintiff’s attorney a telegram as follows:—
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)