TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Guy v. Middleton

ABEL GUY v. JOHN MIDDLETON and HENRY HAIGHT, and others

Guy v. Middleton, 5 Cal. 392 (1855)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1855
Judges
Bryan
Citations
5 Cal. 392
Syllabus
The statute allowing a redemption of property sold at judicial sales, contemplates that the possession shall not change to the purchaser until the expiration of the time limited for redemption. The section of the Act allowing to the purchaser the value of the use and occupation, affords the only remedy the purchaser is entitled to.
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, San Francisco County. The facts material to the points decided appear in the opinion of the Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Bryan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.

In this cause, Guy, owning notes secured by a mortgage against respondents, brings suit and forecloses bis mortgage, and upon the sale of the premises, becomes the purchaser.

The Sheriff having issued his certificate, as required by law, to the purchaser, Guy, before the expiration of the time allowed by law for a redemption of the property, files his petition, praying to be placed in possession of the premises.

The statute of this State, allowing a redemption of real property sold at judicial sales, plainly contemplates that the possession shall not change to the purchaser uatil the expiration of the time prescribed as a limit to the redemption. Section 235 of Compiled Laws, page 563, provides that, “ until the expiration of the time allowed for redemption, the Court may restrain the commission of waste on the property; and, also, under the same section, “ but it shall not be deemed waste for the person in possession of the property at the time of the sale, or *393 entitled to possession afterwards, during the period allowed for redemption, to continue to use it in the same manner in which it was previously used.” This section most clearly contemplates an adverse possession to the purchaser until the time has expired lor redemption. The succeeding section of the Act allowing to the purchaser the value of the use and occupation, affords the only remedy he is entitled to.

The judgment below is affirmed, and the petition is dismissed, at the costs of the petitioner.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1892: 11893: 11916: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hamilton v. Hamilton154 P. 717 (Mont. 1916)
  2. Wood v. Conrad50 N.W. 903 (S.D. 1892)
  3. Cantwell v. McPherson34 P. 1095 (Idaho 1893)

Most recent

  1. Hamilton v. Hamilton154 P. 717 (Mont. 1916)
  2. Cantwell v. McPherson34 P. 1095 (Idaho 1893)
  3. Wood v. Conrad50 N.W. 903 (S.D. 1892)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list