Taylor v. Hawley

California Court of Appeal May 3, 1935 No. Civ. No. 5338Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment quieting title in the plaintiff, holding that the action was an equitable proceeding in which the defendants were not entitled to a jury trial and that the evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding the validity of the foreclosure sale.

Issues

Whether the defendants were entitled to a jury trial in a suit to quiet title involving equitable defenses.
Whether the trial court erred in issuing an injunction to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
Whether the evidence supported the trial court's findings regarding the adequacy of notice and consideration for the property sale.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This is therefore essentially a case in equity, in the trial of which the parties were not entitled to a jury.”

“Every intendment is in favor of the findings, decision and judgment, and in the absence of a complete record of the testimony adduced at the trial, it will be presumed the omitted evidence amply supports the determination of the court.”

THOMPSON, J. Since the commencement of this action the interest of the original plaintiffs in the property in litigation was transferred to Jacob George, who subsequently died. Upon proceedings duly had William J. Taylor was ap[578]pointed and qualified as executor oí the estate of Jacob George, deceased. William J. Taylor, as such executor, has been substituted as plaintiff. This appeal will therefore be determined in the name of William J. Taylor, as Executor of the Estate of Jacob George, Deceased, v. Fred B. Hawley and Elsie J. Hawley, Husband and Wife.

The defendants have appealed from a judgment which was rendered against them in a suit to quiet title to a Long Beach lot. The appellants contend that the findings and judgment are not supported by the evidence and that the court erred in refusing them a trial by jury.

The defendants were the owners of lot 17 of Anderson tract of the city of Long Beach. August 14, 1929, the defendants borrowed from the Golden State Bond and Mortgage Company, Ltd., the sum of $11,000, executing and delivering a trust deed upon the lot in question to secure the loan. Subsequently the defendants defaulted in payments of money secured by the terms of the trust deed. Upon giving notice therefor pursuant to the terms of the trust deed the property was sold by the trustees to the Golden State Bond and Mortgage Company, Ltd., for the sum of $5,000, and the purchaser thereupon took possession of the property. Claiming that possession of the property had been obtained by the mortgage company by fraud, and that the mortgage sale of the property was void for lack of legal notice thereof, and for lack of adequate consideration, the defendants instituted suit and threatened to take forcible possession of the property from the purchaser thereof. Jeannie D. Carlin was appointed and qualified as receiver of the mortgage company, and this suit to quiet title to lot 17 of the Anderson tract of Long Beach was then commenced. The complaint also asks that the defendants be enjoined from forcibly ousting the plaintiff from possession of the property, as they had threatened to do, and from otherwise interfering with her lawful possession by the instituting of a multiplicity of annoying suits. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint, denying the material allegations thereof, and also filed a cross-complaint setting up as an affirmative defense to the suit to quiet title the alleged fraud, lack of notice of foreclosure sale, failure to deliver the deed of conveyance and inadequacy of consideration, rendering the sale void. The cause was tried by the court sitting without a jury. The court adopted findings

Taylor v. Hawley

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief