Burgess

Burgess v. Fairbanks

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 668·83 Cal. 215·23 P. 292
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 27, 1890No. 13262California357 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McFarland, J.

— This is an action to enforce a vendor’s lien for balance of unpaid purchase-money. Judgment was for plaintiff, and defendants appeal from the judgment on the judgment roll alone.

The complaint is sufficient. It avers clearly enough that plaintiff sold the land to the defendant George E. White for $4,150; that of said purchase-money said White paid plaintiff $2,400, and also, according to the terms of *216 the sale, paid to one McMurray $1,025, due on a mortgage on the land, and that the balance, $750, with interest, is due and unpaid; that at the time of the sale, for reasons known to the said White, and at his request, a conveyance of the land was made by plaintiff, with the name of the defendant H. T. Fairbanks inserted therein; and that the latter knew all the facts of the transaction. These averments warrant the enforcement of the lien as against Fairbanks.

There is nothing in the point that the remedies at law must first be exhausted before a bill in equity to enforce a vendor’s lien can be resorted to. (Sparks v. Hess, 15 Cal. 186 .)

The point that plaintiff waived his lien by taking as security the promissory note of a third person is not tenable. The written…

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.