Case Name: ODD FELLOWS' SAVINGS AND COMMERCIAL BANK v. MARGARET HARRIGAN
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1878
Citations: 53 Cal. 229
Docket Number: No. 5963
Parties: ODD FELLOWS’ SAVINGS AND COMMERCIAL BANK v. MARGARET HARRIGAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 229–230

Head Matter:
[No. 5963.]
ODD FELLOWS’ SAVINGS AND COMMERCIAL BANK v. MARGARET HARRIGAN.
Tikjst Deed—Eight to Bedeeii.—'Where, under a decree of Court, the trustees of a trust deed sell the land held in trust, and they deliver the deed therefor to the purchaser, reporting these facts to the Court, which then makes an order confirming the acts of the trustees, and no appeal is taken from the order, it has the effect to deny the right to redeem.
Appeal from, the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County.
The plaintiff obtained a decree for the sale of certain lands, deeded to plaintiff’s assignor, in trust, as security for money borrowed. The trustees, Samuel Poorman and H. G. Smith, were appointed commissioners, and were ordered to sell the land, upon due notice of time and terms of sale; to execute a deed to the purchaser, vesting him with the title in fee, and giving him the right to the immediate possession and to a writ of assistance. The commissioners subsequently reported having complied with the decree, having sold the land November 8th, 1877; and thereupon the Court made an order approving and confirming their proceedings. The purchaser, McKee, demanded possession of the land from the defendant, and being refused, he applied for a writ of assistance, which was granted November 24th, 1877. The defendant appealed from the order granting the writ.
R. P. & H. N. Clement, for Appellant, argued that the defendant had a right to redeem from the sale within six months, as in case of an ordinary mortgage.
D. W. Welty, for Respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court :
Whatever may be the correct interpretation of the decree as originally rendered, so far as the right of the appellant to redeem is involved, it appears that the commissioners subsequently reported to the Court that they had delivered a deed to the purchaser upon making the sale.
This action of the commissioners was thereupon approved by the Court below, and an order was entered, confirming their proceedings. From this order no appeal appears to have been taken, and we think that the effect of the order of confirmation, irrespective of the language of the .decree, was to deny the right of the appellant to redeem from the sale.
Order affirmed. Bemittitur forthwith.