Court Opinion

ID: 3305546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 17:20:36.461894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:48.203053
License: Public Domain

I concur in the judgment and in all of the opinion of the chief justice, with two exceptions.
The opinion appears to suggest that there was no substantial conflict in the evidence in regard to the fact of there having been an agreement between Shoemaker and Robinson, as agent of the Santa Ynez Land and Improvement Company, to the effect that that company should, as mortgagee, take and retain possession of the mortgaged land until the mortgage debt was paid, and in regard to there having been any express consent thereto by Mr. Shoemaker. I think there is a substantial conflict on this subject, but Mr. Shoemaker does not dispute the fact that the company was in the exclusive, actual, and peaceful possession of the land continuously, with his knowledge, receiving to its own use the rents and profits thereof, from 1893 to 1903, nor the fact that during that period he made no objection thereto and demanded no accounting, — that, in short, he acquiesced in its possession as mortgagee. This being the case, the question whether or not there was an express agreement or a formal consent is immaterial. The company must be deemed to be lawfully in possession as mortgagee by implied agreement and by tacit consent. The fact of such implied agreement arises from the circumstances stated, and neither the circumstances nor the implied agreement arising therefrom is denied. The case comes within the rule laid down inBurns v. Hiatt, 149 Cal. 623, [117 Am. St. Rep. 157, *Page 785 87 P. 196], and the company, having lawfully acquired possession, has the same rights as mortgagee in possession as if its possession was under the sanction of an express agreement.
In the statement in the opinion suggesting that the record sufficiently shows the taking of an exception to the instructions, I understand the chief justice to be stating his personal opinion and not that of the court.
Sloss, J., and Angellotti, J., concurred.