Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Brander
Before: Chipman
Synopsis
Vendor and Purchaser—Contract of Sale—Action to Foreclose Rights of Vendee—Privilege of Assignees.—In an action to foreclose the rights of a vendee, who is in default under a contract of sale, the assignees of the vendee, who are made parties, may protect themselves by asking permission to bring the money into court and make payment within the time fixed by the court therefor; hut if they make no such request, they cannot complain that the privilege to pay for the property, and take a deed within the time fixed for such payment by the vendee, does not, in terms, include them.
Id.—Form of Decree—Order of Sale Unnecessary.—In such action it is proper for the court to fix a time within which the vendee must make payment, or he foreclosed of his rights; and it is not necessary that the court should order a sale of the property.
Id.—Retention of Purchase Money by Vendor.—It cannot properly be objected that the decree may operate to give plaintiff the land, and also to allow plaintiff to retain the money paid on account of the price. This is proper, whether the contract provides for a forfeiture or not. The law will not permit defendants to profit pecuniarily by their own default.
In.—Tender and Demand—Stipulation—Authority of Attorney— Ratification.—A stipulation signed by one of the defendants, who appeared as attorney for all of the defendants, showing that a tender of a deed, and demand of payment, was in fact made by the plaintiff, though denied in the answer, may be presumed to have been signed by one who appeared by authority; and such stipulation operates as a ratification of his previous acts in acknowledging service of the tender and demand on behalf of all of the defendants.
CHIPMAN, C. Action to foreclose the rights of a vendee under a contract for the purchase and sale of land. PlaintiE had the decree, from which, and from an order denying defend[256]ants’ motion for a new trial, defendants appeal. Findings of fact were waived, and the cause was heard upon a “stipulated statement of facts,” from which the following appear: “On June 10, 1892, plaintiff and defendant Brander entered into an agreement by which plaintiff agreed to sell and Brander agreed to purchase certain twenty-nine thousand acres of land, situated in the county of Sutter, for the sum of fifty thousand dollars, as follows: Five hundred dollars on executing the agreement; two thousand five hundred dollars thirty days from its date; three thousand dollars one year from its date, and the balance, forty-four thousand dollars, two years from date. Brander was given possession, with the right to rents and profits, and was to pay the taxes on the property and five hundred dollars a year as rental, but no interest on the deferred payments of the purchase price. The contract of sale also included certain levee district warrants to go with the land. Brander made the cash payment of five hundred dollars and the thirty-day payment of two thousand five hundred dollars, and five hundred dollars on account of rent, but no more; “said agreement has not been performed by said George L. Brander, or by anyone else in his behalf”; “plaintiff has complied with and performed all the terms and conditions of said contract on its part to be performed, and that plaintiff is ready and willing to and has offered to perform all the terms of -said contract on its part to be performed; and the plaintiff has duly demanded of the defendants that they carry out the terms of said agreement on their part to be performed, and that they pay the balance due under said agreement, but thait defendants have not made such payments, and have made no payment under said agreement other than those set forth in the complaint”; plaintiff paid all taxes after the first installment for 1893-94; Brander assigned his interest in the contract to the other defendants; on July 2, 1894, "0. L. Tilden, as attorney for the plaintiff, and in its behalf, served on said defendant, Henry Thompson, a written demand,” directed to each of the defendants, requiring them to comply with the terms of said agreement; “and the said Henry Thompson, on said second day of July, 1894, as the attorney for said parties (defendants), did admit service of said demand on behalf of all the parties to whom it was addressed by written indorsement thereon 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)