Ferguson v. Miller
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Yuba. This was a bill in equity to foreclose a mortgage. The facts of the case are as follows : Parks purchased a lot from Ira Eaton, and sold the same to Kelly; Eaton executed a deed direct to Kelly; Kelly mortgaged the same to Parks to secure the purchase money. Parks afterwards sold the lot in question to Miller, and gave him a bond to foreclose the mortgage outstanding.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Yuba. This was a bill in equity to foreclose a mortgage. The facts of the case are as follows : Parks purchased a lot from Ira Eaton, and sold the same to Kelly; Eaton executed a deed direct to Kelly; Kelly mortgaged the same to Parks to secure the purchase money. Parks afterwards sold the lot in question to Miller, and gave him a bond to foreclose the mortgage outstanding. Miller after-wards mortgaged to Ferguson and also to Watts. Miller remained in possession and erected a house upon the premises; Bartlett and Garwood…
1Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Murray, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt concurred.
Miller having purchased from Parks and entered into possession, may be regarded as a mortgagee in possession, and as such had a legal title against the whole world, subject to the rights of the mortgagor. If Miller had been in possession, simply relying on that possession, it is evident that his title would have been sufficient to warrant him in mortgaging the premises. IIow, then, can the fact that he was also a mortgagee, weaken the strength of that possession ? The…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Tibbetts v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
- Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Fluming Co.California Supreme Court · 1863
- McAdams v. Piedmont Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1914