Krutz v. Isaacs

Citations

• 25 Wash. 566
• 66 P. 141
• 1901 Wash. LEXIS 432

Syllabus

<p>ACTION FOB QUIETING TITLE-LIMITATIONS.</p> <p>Under Bal. Code, §§ 5500, 5501, whch provide that in an action for the recovery of the possession of real estate the plaintiff may have judgment quieting or removing a cloud from plaintiff’s title, but that such action, where possession has been taken under execution sale, shall he brought within seven years next after possession being taken as aforesaid, and that when the possessor shall acquire title after taking such possession “the limitation shall begin to run from the time of acquiring title,” the statute of limitations would not begin to run against plaintiff until his actual ouster and the taking possession of the premises by defendants, where possession was not taken until some time subsequent to the sheriff’s sale.</p> <p>SAME.</p> <p>Where an action is brought under Bal. Code, §§ 5500, 5501, both for possession and the quieting of title, the limitation upon such actions of seven years specially provided therein governs instead of Bal. Code, § 4797, subd. 1, which fixes the limitation period at ten years in “actions for the recovery of real property, or for the possession thereof.”</p> <p>JUDGMENTS-INVALIDITY-REMEDY FOR SALE UNDER VOID JUDGMENT.</p> <p>The remedy of the grantee of a judgment debtor, whose land has been sold under a void judgment against his grantor, is not by bringing proceedings to vacate the judgment under Bal. Code, § 5153 et seq., but is governed by Id., § 5500 et seq., which authorize actions to recover possession of real estate and to quiet title thereto.</p> <p>SAME — FAILURE TO SERVE PROCESS — OONCLUSIVENESS OF SHERIFF’S RETURN.</p> <p>In an action for equitable relief against a judgment which had been rendered without the court’s having acquired jurisdiction of defendant’s person because of a failure to properly serve him with process, the return of the sheriff that he made such service by leaving a copy with a person of suitable age at the residence of defendant is subject to attac