283 P. 93 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1929
This is an appeal from a judgment which was entered against the plaintiff upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint to quiet title.
The complaint alleges only an interest in a particularly described piece of real property by virtue of a general money judgment which, as the law then existed, gave him a statutory lien upon all the real property of the judgment debtor which was situated in the county where the judgment was procured. (Sec.
A demurrer was sustained upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The plaintiff was denied the privilege of amending his pleading, and a judgment of dismissal was thereupon entered against him, from which this appeal was perfected.
The appellant contends that under the provisions of section
[1] The plaintiff had a speedy and complete remedy at law for the satisfaction of his valid and binding judgment, by procuring and levying an execution under section
In the case of French Lumbering Co. v. Theriault,
[2] In the present case no specific lien upon any particular property was decreed. Upon proper pleadings in *510 an action for that purpose the court may render a money judgment and attach a lien upon specific real property to secure the payment thereof. However, that was not done in this case. So far as the pleadings in the present case are concerned, the judgment debtor may have possessed several separate tracts of real property, any one of which would satisfy the judgment. In the absence of a decree specifically attaching the lien to a particular property and in the absence of the levying of an execution, obviously the appellant has no such interest in the real property described as will enable him to maintain a suit to quiet title.
[3] Nor will a suit for declaratory relief necessarily lie under such circumstances. Section
Since the appellant has a speedy and adequate remedy for the satisfaction of his judgment by means of levying an execution, upon which proceeding the validity of the lien may be tested if it should then be questioned, the court had a discretion to refuse to accept jurisdiction under section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that it was unnecessary.
The judgment is affirmed.
Plummer, J., and Finch, P.J., concurred.