From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bolton v. Logan

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District
Sep 15, 1941
46 Cal.App.2d 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)


Docket No. 2787.

September 15, 1941.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Inyo County. Wm. D. Dehy, Judge. Reversed.

Action to quiet title to mining claims by purchaser at an execution sale as against the purchaser under a foreclosure sale. Judgment for defendant reversed.

W.W. Kaye for Appellant.

Mayock Lester and Welburn Mayock for Respondent.

The opinion delivered upon a former appeal herein (30 Cal.App. (2d) 30 [ 85 P.2d 546, 86 P.2d 365]) contains a sufficient statement of the nature of the controversy. In that opinion we held that the trial court should have admitted the decree of foreclosure and the sheriff's deed as evidence tending to prove defendant's title. They were muniments in an asserted title. (See Barr v. Gratz's Executors, 4 Wheat. (U.S.) 213 [4 L.Ed. 553].)

[1] Upon the second trial the judgment roll in the foreclosure proceedings and the sheriff's deed given pursuant to sale thereunder, were received in evidence. According to Purser v. Cady, 120 Cal. 214 [52 P. 489], it is necessary, if not established by the complaint or the judgment of foreclosure, to establish by proper evidence the time at which the lien accrued. Here the complaint and the decree of foreclosure set forth these facts and it therefore was unnecessary for defendant to prove by other evidence the execution of the mortgage or its assignment.

[2] Plaintiff in rebuttal sought to attack the foreclosure decree by introducing evidence over the objection of the defendant attacking the validity of the mortgage and the alleged collusion involved in its foreclosure. The court admitted this evidence but did not make a finding thereon. Judgment upon the second trial went for defendant and plaintiff appeals. The court properly admitted the evidence attacking the validity of the mortgage and the collusion involved in its foreclosure, but erred in not making a finding on this material issue. ( Bird v. Murphy, 72 Cal.App. 39 [ 236 P. 154]; Krug v. John E. Yoakum Co., 27 Cal.App. (2d) 91 [ 80 P.2d 492], citing Title Insurance Trust Co. v. California Development Co., 171 Cal. 173 [ 152 P. 542].)

For this reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to the trial court to make findings as to the validity of the mortgage and the foreclosure and enter judgment accordingly.

Barnard, P.J., and Griffin, J., concurred.

Respondent's petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied November 13, 1941.

Summaries of

Bolton v. Logan

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District
Sep 15, 1941
46 Cal.App.2d 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
Case details for

Bolton v. Logan

Case Details

Full title:PAUL BOLTON, Appellant, v. R.S. LOGAN, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District

Date published: Sep 15, 1941


46 Cal.App.2d 739 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
116 P.2d 801

Citing Cases

San Jose Etc. Title Ins. Co. v. Elliott

Many cases are cited in the footnotes to support these fundamental principles. (In addition, see Parker v.…

Krum v. Malloy

A reversal of the judgment is necessary. (See Huntington v. Vavra (1918), 36 Cal.App. 352, 355 [ 172 P. 166];…