Bernal v. Wade
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The “findings ” alluded to in the opinion were as follows: “I find for the defendants in this case, because: 1. The evideuce is insufficient to prove that Tgnacio Alviso placed his son in possession of the land in controversy with the intention of renouncing it in his favor and irrevocably transferring to him the title to it. 2. It is insufficient to prove that the son accepted the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The “findings ” alluded to in the opinion were as follows: “I find for the defendants in this case, because: 1. The evideuce is insufficient to prove that Tgnacio Alviso placed his son in possession of the land in controversy with the intention of renouncing it in his favor and irrevocably transferring to him the title to it. 2. It is insufficient to prove that the son accepted the possession of the land as a donation from his father. 3. Therefore, the plaintiff has no equitable right or title to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:
The complaint alleges that Ygnacio Alviso, being at the time the grantee, under the Mexican Government, of the rancho “Rincon de los Esteros,” made to his son José Maria under whom plaintiffs claim, a verbal gift of that portion of the rancho called “ Chino.” The defendants are the devisees, or the grantees of the devisees of Ygnacio Alviso, and under the Act of Congress of March 3d, 1851, “to ascertain and settle private land claims in the State of California,” are the confirmees of the portion of the rancho which includes the tract called “Chino,” in controversy…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Brock v. PearsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891