Camden v. Vail
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Ninth Judicial District, County of Shasta. On the first day of October, 1860, J. H. Robinson sold to E. M. C. Vail a hotel at Shasta, and executed and delivered to her a deed therefor. She was at the time the wife of the defendant in this action, Gr. S. C. Vail. For a part of the purchase money, she executed to him the mortgage to foreclose which this action is brought.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Ninth Judicial District, County of Shasta. On the first day of October, 1860, J. H. Robinson sold to E. M. C. Vail a hotel at Shasta, and executed and delivered to her a deed therefor. She was at the time the wife of the defendant in this action, Gr. S. C. Vail. For a part of the purchase money, she executed to him the mortgage to foreclose which this action is brought. The Court below rendered the usual decree for a sale of the mortgaged premises. The defendants Gr. C. S". Vail and Crosby appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtCope, J.
This is an action to foreclose a mortgage, which the complaint avers was given by the' defendant YaH “ in the name and under the signature and seal ” of his wife. It is averred that YaH purchased the mortgaged property, of one Robinson, taking the conveyance in the name of his wife, and that the mortgage was given to secure the payment of a portion of the purchase money. The plaintiff claims by assignment from Robinson, and alleges that the property has been conveyed by Yail and wife to the defendant Crosby, but that the conveyance was fraudulent and without consideration. The only answer in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Baum v. GrigsbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
3Cited by9 opinions
- Radford v. CarwileWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1879
- Avery v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- McKeown v. CollinsSupreme Court of Florida · 1896
- Pease v. KellyOregon Supreme Court · 1869
- Tripp v. DuaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.