31 Cal. 591, Green v. Clark

Citation:31 Cal. 591
Opinion Judge:RHODES, Judge
Party Name:HENRY GREEN v. WILLIAM H. CLARK
Attorney:P. L. Edwards, for Appellant. H. H. Hartley, for Respondent.
Judge Panel:JUDGES: Rhodes, J.
Case Date:January 01, 1867
Court:Supreme Court of California

Page 591

31 Cal. 591

HENRY GREEN

v.

WILLIAM H. CLARK

Supreme Court of California

January, 1867

Appeal from the District Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, Tulare County.

Ejectment to recover a lot in Visalia, Tulare County. The cause was tried before the Court without a jury. Defendant had judgment, and plaintiff appealed.

COUNSEL:

P. L. Edwards, for Appellant. A quitclaim deed only passes the title of the grantor at the time of its execution. In this case the Court below seems to have decided upon what we consider a misconception of the meaning of this Court in Clarke v. Baker , 14 Cal. 612. In this connection see San Francisco v. Lawton , 18 Cal. 475. But if, according to our hypothesis, the plaintiff's title relates back to the date of the first mortgage and Russell's purchase and redemption, then we submit that Clarke v. Baker is wholly in our favor. When Russell obtained his deed from the Sheriff it related back to the date of the mortgage, and excluded all intervening titles; and when he conveyed to plaintiff the title of the latter had a like effect.

H. H. Hartley, for Respondent. Whatever title Russell acquired by the purchase at Sheriff's sale, by virtue of thestatute, immediately inured to Baker by virtue of his purchase from Russell and Poindexter. But if we admit that the purchase money used by Russell at his purchase at the Sheriff's sale was plaintiff's, and that Baker knew that fact, then he would have held the property as trustee for plaintiff. And if plaintiff did advance the purchase money, and the purchase was made for his benefit, yet after he acquired this supposed trust, he, plaintiff, in November, 1861, conveyed all this supposed equitable interest to Baker, thus divesting himself of all pretense of equity or beneficial interest in the land. Under this state of facts the plaintiff certainly cannot complain of the exclusion of the evidence offered. The plaintiff having parted with all pretense of title, either legal or equitable, by his deed of November, 1861, to Baker, he can make no claim by virtue of any subsequent deed from Russell to him.

JUDGES: Rhodes, J.

OPINION

Page 592

RHODES, Judge

Ejectment to recover a lot of land in the Town of Visalia. The Court found certain facts in issue, and ordered judgment

Page 593

for the defendant. The plaintiff neither excepted to the finding as defective...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP