Case Name: LUCY E. KIBBEE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DURFLINGER et al., Defendants; C. S. MAUPIN, Appellant
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1919-12-31
Citations: 45 Cal. App. 794
Docket Number: Civ. No. 3166
Parties: LUCY E. KIBBEE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DURFLINGER et al., Defendants; C. S. MAUPIN, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 794–795

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 3166.
First Appellate District, Division One.
December 31, 1919]
LUCY E. KIBBEE, Respondent, v. WILLIAM DURFLINGER et al., Defendants; C. S. MAUPIN, Appellant.
Mortgages — Deeds op Trust — Priority — Fraud — Estoppel.— Judgment reversed on the authority of Burrows v. Durflinger et al., ante, p. 366.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John W. Shenk, Judge. Reversed.
The facts, in all essential respects, are the same as in Burrows v. Durflinger et al., ante, p. 366, [187 Pac. 752].
L. G. Shelton and A. W. Ashburn for Appellant.
Muhleman & Crump for Respondent.

Opinion:
KERRIGAN, J.
The record on appeal in this case has been brought here in the same transcript as the ease of Burrows v. Durflinger et al., ante, p. 366, [187 Pac. 752], and the points and arguments of the respective parties in the two cases have been presented in one set of briefs, but in the interest of clearness we have deemed it advisable to consider them separately.
The facts in the two cases differ in a number of immaterial matters, such as, for example, the price of the lots, the amount óf the mortgages, the condition of the lots so far as improvements are concerned, and the fact that in the present case there were two separate lots involved. In the case now being considered the appellant understood that the loan by him was for the purpose of erecting buildings upon the several lots; and in order to insure that the money would be thus used and in order to improve his security he directed the escrow holder to withhold two hundred dollars from the loan until the foundations of the buildings should be laid. In all essential respects, however, the facts in the two cases are the same, and no discussion of them in this ease would serve any useful end. On the authority of the above- mentioned case of Burrows v. Durflinger et al., ante, p. 366, [187 Pac. 752], the judgment is reversed.
Waste, P. J., and Wood, J., pro tem., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on February 26, 1920.
All the Justices concurred.