Fly
Fly v. Cline
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Finlayson, J.
Several actions in the superior court were consolidated and tried as one. The trial resulted in a judgment adverse to Milton A. Fly, the appellant. The controversy presents the question as to whether appellant had the right to redeem the property, a lot in the city of Los Angeles, from a redemption previously made by the Hammond Lumber Company.
The facts necessary to an understanding of the questions presented by the appeal are these:
On February 26, 1913, Della Ingerson, the then owner of the premises, mortgaged the property to the Security Trust & Savings Bank to secure her promissory note for $2,500.
Desiring to erect an apartment house on the premises, Mrs. Ingerson, on April 28, 1913, entered into the following written agreement with appellant:
About three months later plans for an apartment house, to cost about $65,000, were prepared by an architect.
On November 6, 1913, Mrs. Ingerson executed a second mortgage on the property to Watson B. Burt, as mortgagee, to secure her promissory note, of even date, for $45,000. This mortgage, hereafter referred to as the Burt mortgage, was recorded November 27, 1913, and later was assigned to the Hammond- Lumber Company.