Robbins Investment Co. v. Annandale Inc.

EDMONDS, J. The respondent, Annandale Incorporated, has moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s appeal from the judg[624]ment rendered in an action to quiet title, upon the ground that the issues have become moot and that the corporation waived the right to continue the prosecution of its appeal by accepting benefits under the judgment.

The controversy concerns title to certain real property which in 1932 was acquired by A. C. Robbins and Anne Fulton Robbins, his wife, as joint tenants. In 1935, judgment was rendered against Mr. Robbins for some $22,000, and two years later he and his wife conveyed the property to Robbins Investment Co., Inc., the plaintiff corporation. Subsequently, the defendant corporation, who had become the assignee of the unsatisfied judgment, levied execution upon this prbperty, and at an execution sale purchased all of the interest of A. C. Robbins therein.

Robbins Investment Co., Inc., then sued to quiet title. The defendant corporation not only denied the plaintiff’s allegations, but by a cross-complaint alleged that it is the owner of the property. Upon these issues, the trial court adjudged that the defendant is the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the land, subject to the statutory right of redemption from the execution sale, and that the other one-half interest is owned by the plaintiff.

In an affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, its counsel states that after the entry of the judgment, the plaintiff attempted to secure an agreement that the period of redemption be extended until its appeal was determined. As a part of the proposed agreement, the plaintiff offered to place the amount required for redemption in escrow, under instructions that payment should abide the final judgment. The defendant declined to enter into any agreement whatever and the plaintiff then notified the defendant in writing that it would redeem the property. Its letter reads: " This redemption is made under protest and only by reason of the fact that unless the same is made before the expiration of the period of redemption, Robbins Investment Co., Inc., may lose property of a value greatly in excess of the amount required to redeem the same.”

On the same day that this letter was written the plaintiff filed its notice of appeal. The redemption was made two days later.

The defendant contends that the plaintiff has now acquired clear title to the property by redemption made within the