Palmer v. McCafferty
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Tenth District. Ejectment. Complaint in the usual form. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, and averred, among other things, that defendant held under a deed made by the Sheriff on foreclosure of a mortgage executed by one Wooster to defendant, while he, Wooster, was in possession of the premises.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Tenth District. Ejectment. Complaint in the usual form. The answer denied the allegations of the complaint, and averred, among other things, that defendant held under a deed made by the Sheriff on foreclosure of a mortgage executed by one Wooster to defendant, while he, Wooster, was in possession of the premises. Wooster entered into possession under an executory contract, not under seal, for the sale of the land, made between himself and Scaggs & Co. By the terms of this contract, S. & Co. agreed to sell the land to W. for the sum of $9,000, payable $2,000 cash, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Cope, J. and Field, C. J. concurring.
This was an action for the recovery of a tract of land. The error assigned by. the appellant is the exclusion of a certain executory cpntract for the sale of the land sued for. This agreement was referred to in the testimony of one McFarland, the subscribing witness. The counsel offering the deposition and the agreement, explained that it was the intention of the plaintiff to show, in connection with it, that the defendant claimed the premises under one Wooster, who was a party to the instrument.
It seems that Wooster executed a mortgage of these premises…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McCandless v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- State v. RhoadesNevada Supreme Court · 1871
- Bennett v. United States Land, Title & Legacy Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1914
- State v. HeaderSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881