Dunlap

Dunlap v. Kelsey

Good Law
5 Cal. 181
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1855California349 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J.

Bryan, J., concurred.

The complainant was a purchaser at Sheriff’s sale under a mortgage foreclosure, and claims to have the legal title to the property in dispute. He gave the sum of twenty dollars for it, and it is shown by the record to have been worth three thousand dollars, and producing a rental of fifty dollars per month.

The defendant was also a purchaser at Sheriff’s sale of the same premises under a foreclosure of a prior, but unregistered, mortgage; and paid for the property the sum of two thousand dollars.

The complainant files his bill to remove the cloud upon his title produced by the sale to the defendants, and at the same time alleges that he (the complainant j is in possession and enjoyment of the property.

This is a very singular application to be made to a Court of Equity, and must be denied upon the same doctrine which governs the Court in cases brought for specific performance. In such cases the familiar rule is, that to entitle the party applying for a specific performance, to a favorable decree, it must appear that the contract was fair, just ar.d *182 reasonable, and founded upon an adequate consideration. Otherwise the relief sought will be denied. The…

Dissenting Opinion

Murray, J.

I dissent from the foregoing opinion, as I do not think the rule applies to Sheriffs’ sales.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.