Eldridge v. Wright

Citations

• 55 Cal. 531
• 1880 Cal. LEXIS 318

Syllabus

<p>RedE3IPtiox— Tenants in Common. — Where land sold under judgment is embraced in one sale, n redemptioner, having a lien upon a share or'part of the land sold, can only redeem by paying the whole of the purchase-money and redeeming the whole of the land; and in such case, lie succeeds to tlio whole interest of the purchaser. Accordingly, where land was sold under' a judgment of foreclosure against tenants in common, and redeemed by a judgment creditor of one of the tenants, who in due course received his deed: Held, that the redemptioner took the interests of both tenants.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Shabpstein, J., concurring in the judgment, doubted whether the redemptioner had a right to redeem a greater interest in tlie property sold than that of his judgment debtor; but was of the opinion, as the purchaser did not object to his redeeming the whole property, that the effect of tlio transaction was to vest in him the whole interest of the purchaser.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Lien.—Mykicic, J., dissenting, was of opinion that the redemptioner was subrogated to the rights of his judgment debtor, and thus became tlio owner of the legal title formerly held by him; and, as to the other tenant, that lie acquired an equitable lien upon his interest as security for one-lialf of tho redemption money.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Cases Explained — Equitable Redemption— Statutory Redemption.—Kirlcman v. Dupont, 14 Cal., was not a case of statutory redemption, hut of redemption by junior mortgagees of tho interest of one tenant in common from a sale in a foreclosure suit against tlio tenants in common to which they were not parties. The difference between tho cases is explained in 1 Vhitney v Iliggins, 10 Cal. 554, and Montgomery v. Tutt, 11 id. 317.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Id.—Erwin v. Schrivar, 19 Johns. 379, and Fischer v. Hslamann, 08 111. 78, are on statutes with different provisions from the statute of this State.</p>