Legal Opinion

Posten v. Rassette

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1855PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County. Ejectment for certain property in San Francisco. The facts are as follows: On the 4th day of January, 1850, Robert A. Parker, by virtue of a power of attorney from one Charles C. Southard, sold and conveyed to James Cunningham, the property in dispute. In May, 1853, Cunningham conveyed to Rassette, under whom Crozier claims.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, San Francisco County. Ejectment for certain property in San Francisco. The facts are as follows: On the 4th day of January, 1850, Robert A. Parker, by virtue of a power of attorney from one Charles C. Southard, sold and conveyed to James Cunningham, the property in dispute. In May, 1853, Cunningham conveyed to Rassette, under whom Crozier claims. In December of the same year, Southard, with a full. knowledge of the former conveyance, sold the property to the plaintiff. At the trial, defendants produced the deed from Southard to…

1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, J.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

1. The first objection of the appellant, relates to the form of the deed. It is insisted, that as it was executed while the Mexican laws were in force, that to give it validity, it should have been executed according to the forms prescribed by those laws. The objection comes too late. It ought to have been taken on the trial at nisi prius. It *469would then have given an opportunity to the defendants to prove that custom had changed the law. This would be perfectly legitimate, according to the rules of the civil law, and would be called a custom beyond the law. Indeed, it…

2Cited by15 opinions

  1. Dart Industries, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Estate of SharonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Stanley v. GreenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. C.B.D. v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2011
  5. In re Will of WarfieldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API