Cunningham

Cunningham v. Mitchell

Good Law
21 F.2d 881·1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2779
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 10, 1927No. 5232California1,323 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Dietrich, J.

The instant proceeding was brought by the trustee in bankruptcy, appellee, to give finality and effect to litigation of unusual persistency. In re Rury (C. C. A.) 2 F.(2d) 331 ; Bowen v. Rury, 117 Wash. 30 , 200 P. 789 ; Cunningham v. Mitchell, 126 Wash. 294 , 218 P. 386 ; Mitchell v. Cunningham (C. C. A.) 8 F.(2d) 813 . Upon the going down of the mandate in the last-named case, the decree of the lower court was modified to comply with the views expressed in our reported opinion. On January 14,1926, the judge of the superior court of Washington for Benton county indorsed his approval on the commissioner’s deed, and four days later the instrument was re-reeorded. On October 30, 1926, the appellant, Mitchell, recorded in the same office a deed purporting to have been executed to him by Rury on November 5, 1925, and to convey such interest as the grantor may have had in the property in controversy. Two days after such recording Mitchell began a suit against the trustee in the state superior court for Benton county, pleading this deed, as well as the original deed previously held to be void in the courts, and praying that his title be quieted. About the same time he served upon the…

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.