Case ID: cal_33/html/0265-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court, Sawyer, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

C. F. BLUDWORTH v. GEORGE P. LAKE. (No. 2.)
    Who Affected by a Foreclosure.—The title of the grantee of mortgaged property is not affected by a foreclosure and sale, in a suit commenced after the conveyance by the mortgagor, unless the grantee is made a party to the suit.
    Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, San Joaquin County.
    The facts of this case are stated in the opinion of this Court in the last preceding cause reported between the same parties, except this, to wit: All that portion of the demanded premises not embraced within the three hundred and twenty acre tract, upon which School Land Warrant Ho. 128 was located, was acquired by Snelling from one Emanuel Quives.
    J. B. Hall, and W. S. Montgomery, for Appellant.
    
      P. G. Wigginton, and J. H Budd, for Respondent.
   By the Court, Sawyer, J.:

This case was recently before us on defendant’s appeal from the portion of the judgment adverse to him, and the facts will be found stated in our opinion on that appeal.

The present appeal is by plaintiff, from that portion of the judgment which directs that plaintiff take nothing by reason of his action, and that defendant recover his costs.

As to that portion of the land in dispute embraced in . plaintiff’s patent from the State, the defendant established a good equitable defence, for reasons stated in our opinion on defendant’s appeal.

As to that portion of the land in dispute, the title to which was derived from Quives, plaintiff has no title subsequent to his conveyance to Hall, and Hall’s conveyance to defendant, except that derived through the judgment of foreclosure against Hall, and the sale thereunder. Defendant was hot a party to that suit, and his title was in no way affected by it. That portion conveyed to Ruffin A. Moore does not appear to have ever been reconveyed to plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, shows no right to recover as to any of the land in dispute, and that part of the judgment against the defendant, and from which he appeals, is correct and must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

Mr. Justice Shafter did not express an opinion.