California Savings Bank of San Diego v. Parrish

Citations

• 116 Cal. 254
• 48 P. 73

Syllabus

<p>Vendor’s Lien—Statute of Limitations—Agreement of Purchaser to Pay Note of Vendor — Maturity of Note — Payment by Vendor—-Running of Statute.—Where a purchaser of real property-agreed to pay the purchase money, with interest monthly, upon a note of the vendor given to a prior vendor, and further agreed that upon his failure to pay the interest or the principal of the purchase money upon said note at maturity, the vendor, his heirs, or assigns should be entitled to collect from him the amount unpaid, a cause of action arose in favor of the vendor against the purchaser immediately upon his failure to pay the note at maturity, without the necessity of payment of the note by the vendor; and an action to enforce a vendor’s lien for the unpaid purchase money is barred within four years from the date of the maturity of the note, nor does the fact that the note was afterward paid by the vendor, affect the running of the statute from such maturity.</p> <p>Id.—Extinguishment of Lien—Lapse of Time.—Under section 2911 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a lien is extinguished by the lapse of the time within which an action can be brought upon the principal obligation.</p> <p>Id.—Foreclosure of Mortgage — Crjss-complaint upon Vendor’s Lien—Demurrer of Mortgagor—Statute of Limitations.—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, where one of the defendants filed a cross-complaint seeking to enforce a vendor’s lien against the mortgagor as a prior charge upon the land, which showed upon its face that the time within which, under the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, an action could have been brought by the vendor to recover the purchase money, had expired before the cross-complaint was filed, a demurrer to the cross-complaint filed by the mortgagor upon the ground that the lien set up, if any existed, was barred by the statute of limitations, should be sustained.</p>