Wilbur v. Donohoe Kelly Banking Co.

California Court of Appeal

Wilbur v. Donohoe Kelly Banking Co.

91 P.2d 910, 33 Cal. App. 2d 395, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 241

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 19, 1939

DocketCiv. No. 11017

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 P.2d 910 (Wilbur v. Donohoe Kelly Banking Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilbur v. Donohoe Kelly Banking Co., 91 P.2d 910, 33 Cal. App. 2d 395, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 241 (Cal. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued to quiet title to several lots of land which were sold after default under a trust deed. Defendants had judgment, and plaintiff’s appeal raises the single ground that the sale was invalid because the lots were sold separately rather than as a unit, as the property was described in the trust deed.

Several grounds are urged by respondents upon which the judgment should be sustained, and, if any one of these is good, there must be an affirmance. It is pointed out that the plaintiff did not, by pleading or proof, offer to pay the debt secured by this trust deed, and did not otherwise offer to do equity. This question we had before us in Touli v. Santa Cruz County Title Co., 20 Cal. App. (2d) 495, 499 [67 Pac. (2d) 404], where we said: “ . . . one is not entitled to relief in a court of equity who refuses to do equity on his part. In Shimpones v. Stickney, 219 Cal. 637, 649 [28 Pac. (2d) 673], it is said: ‘ It is settled in California that a mortgagor cannot quiet his title against the mortgagee without paying the debt secured. (See a long list of cases sustaining the equitable rule as variously applied collated in 10 Cal. Jur., p. 512 et seq.) It was clearly erroneous to quiet her title under the circumstances of her refusal to do equity.’ ”

The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued to quiet title to several lots of land which were sold after default under a trust deed. Defendants had judgment, and plaintiff’s appeal raises the single ground that the sale was invalid because the lots were sold separately rather than as a unit, as the property was described in the trust deed.

Several grounds are urged by respondents upon which the judgment should be sustained, and, if any one of these is good, there must be an affirmance. It is pointed out that the plaintiff did not, by pleading or proof, offer to pay the debt secured by this trust deed, and did not otherwise offer to do equity. This question we had before us in Touli v. Santa Cruz County Title Co., 20 Cal. App. (2d) 495, 499 [67 Pac. (2d) 404], where we said: “ . . . one is not entitled to relief in a court of equity who refuses to do equity on his part. In Shimpones v. Stickney, 219 Cal. 637, 649 [28 Pac. (2d) 673], it is said: ‘ It is settled in California that a mortgagor cannot quiet his title against the mortgagee without paying the debt secured. (See a long list of cases sustaining the equitable rule as variously applied collated in 10 Cal. Jur., p. 512 et seq.) It was clearly erroneous to quiet her title under the circumstances of her refusal to do equity.’ ”

The judgment is affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 P.2d 910, 33 Cal. App. 2d 395, 1939 Cal. App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilbur-v-donohoe-kelly-banking-co-calctapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack