87 F.2d 42 (9th Cir. 1936), 8194, Curti v. Pacific Mortg. Guaranty Co.
|Citation:||87 F.2d 42|
|Party Name:||CURTI et al. v. PACIFIC MTG. GUARANTY CO. et al.|
|Case Date:||December 17, 1936|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Carroll Allen, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Edwin A. Meserve and William Larrabee, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.
Before MATHEWS and HANEY, Circuit Judges, and NETERER, District Judge.
NETERER, District Judge.
Reversal is sought of a judgment of dismissal of a complaint challenging the sale of real estate hypothecated to secure payment of money at a stated time by virtue of a power of sale contained in the agreement of hypothecation pursuant to the provisions of section 2924 of the Civil Code of California, charging that said section violated the 'due process' clause of the Constitution of the United States (Const. Amend. 14), the hypothecation being made for security only, and that the procedure to enforce the contract must be by judicial procedure and sale upon execution by decree of court. No contention is made that the power of sale was not in all things strictly pursued.
This section of the statute entered into and became a part of the deed of hypothecation as fully as if set out therein. It is not contended that the power of sale was not set out in the instrument, nor that the requirements of the section 2924, supra, were not in detail performed.
That the trustor has power to confer upon the trustee, who may be the obligee to the deed of trust, the power to sell in accordance with the terms of the power given and a sale so made passes good title to the property so sold has long since been judicially determined. Fogarty v. Sawyer, 17 Cal. 589; Bell Silver & Copper Mining Co. v. First National Bank, 156 U.S. 470, 15 S.Ct. 440, 39 L.Ed. 497; Grant v. Burr, 54 Cal. 298; Bateman v. Burr, 57 Cal. 480. The 'due process' clause is not violated by the provisions of section 2924, supra.
That valid title passed on execution of such contractural power is unquestionable. Scott v. Paisley, 271 U.S. 632, 46 S.Ct. 591, 70 L.Ed. 1123. This is a case where the constitutionality of a like statute of Georgia was attacked.
Aside from the power of sale conferred in the instrument and the provisions of section 2924, supra, section 2932, Civil Code of California, provides: 'A power of sale may be conferred by a mortgage upon the mortgagee or any other person, to be...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP