Randall v. Duff

Citations

• 79 Cal. 115

Syllabus

<p>Agent—Unauthorized Conveyance by. —If an agent to sell real property undertakes to convey it without consideration, no title passes by his conveyance. It is a mere nullity. (Dupont v. Wenhernan, 10 Cal. 368, approved and followed.)</p> <p>Id,—Mortgage by Such a Grantee to Innocent Persons.—If the grantee of the agent mortgages the property to innocent persons, the mortgages are valid liens for the loans which they were given to secure; but such mortgages do not pass the legal title, which remains in the principal.</p> <p>Id. — Foreclosure of Such Mortgages — Principal a Necessary Party. — In foreclosing such mortgages, the principal is a necessary party, and if he is not made a party, the decree does not cut off his rights.</p> <p>Id.—Sale under Such a Decree—Rights of Purchasers thereat.— If the property is sold under such a decree of foreclosure to purchasers with notice of the facts, they take no title. But if they are without notice, they are protected by the rule as to Iona fide purchasers, as much as if they had purchased directly from the party in whom the title appeared to be on the records. This is by virtue of the fact that they were such purchasers at the time of the foreclosure sale. Their want of notice at the time they took fcheii mortgages is not sufficient.</p> <p>Id.—Effect of Notice of Lis Pendens in Pbiob Suit.—If before the foreclosure sale the principal commenced a suit to assert his rights, and filed a notice of Us pendens, such notice charged the purchasers at the foreclosure sale with notice of the matters litigated in said suit; and therefore they are not innocent purchasers.</p> <p>Id, — Statute of Limitations.— In such case, inasmuch as the purchasers under the foreclosure sale acquire nothing, the question of the statute of limitations does not arise. It is not as if they took a title, and the bepefieial owner was attempting to set up a secret trust.</p>