Summary
In Plummer, supra, 64 Cal. 429, the trial court had ordered that the default of the grantor of land and the resulting default judgment be set aside and that the grantees be allowed to be substituted in place of the grantor to defend as successors in interest and to conduct all proceedings in grantor's name.
Summary of this case from Credit Managers v. National Indep. Bus. AllianceOpinion
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the county of Los Angeles, setting aside a default and judgment in favor of the respondent, and allowing Martha Brown and C. E. Thom to defend as successors in interest of the defendant and to conduct all proceedings in his name.
Action to have a trust in certain lands declared in favor of the plaintiff, and to enforce a conveyance of the legal title. The defendant John A. Brown suffered a default, and judgment was rendered against him. After the commencement of the suit Martha Brown and C. E. Thom acquired the interest of the defendant John A. Brown in the land in controversy. They moved to set aside the default and vacate the judgment. This appeal is from the order granting this motion.
COUNSEL:
Edwin Baxter, and Will. D. Gould, for Appellants.
Bicknell & White, for Respondents.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
The other facts appear in the opinion.
We think that Martha Brown and Thom, after acquiring the entire interest of the defendant in the subject-matter of this action, were his "legal representatives" within the meaning of the phrase as used in section 473, Code of Civil Procedure. "An assignee or grantee is a legal representative of the assignor or grantor in regard to the thing assigned or granted." ( G.G.R.R. & B. Co. v. Bryan, 8 Smedes & M. 275.) They certainly had acquired the right to represent [1 P. 704] him. The transfer of his interest to them entitled them to have the action continued in his name, or the court might allow them to be substituted for him. (Code Civ. Proc. § 385.) "To represent a person is to stand in his place, to act his part, exercise his right, or take his share." (Abb. Law Dict.)
Being the legal representatives of the defendant the court was authorized upon such terms as might be just to relieve them from a default taken against him, through their mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
After transferring his entire interest in the subject of the controversy, the defendant was only nominally a party to the action. The real parties in interest were his grantees. The entry of his default affected them, not him. It is the duty of all courts to construe the provisions of the Code "liberally, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice." (Code Civ. Proc. § 4.) And being satisfied that the moving parties were, upon the showing made by them, entitled to the relief granted, the order of the court below is affirmed.
Hearing in Bank denied.