Southern Pac. R. v. Doyle
District Court, D. California
In this case, the defendant, in addition to the points heretofore made in the case of the Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Orton, 6 Sawy. 157, and the several cases tried with it, and the ease of the same plaintiff against Pryor, now claims that before the institution of this actipn, plaintiff conveyed all the lands derived under the congressional grant to D. 0. Mills and Lloyd Tevis; and that, at the date of the commencement of this action, the legal title, right of possession, and,…
Read the full summary
In this case, the defendant, in addition to the points heretofore made in the case of the Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Orton, 6 Sawy. 157, and the several cases tried with it, and the ease of the same plaintiff against Pryor, now claims that before the institution of this actipn, plaintiff conveyed all the lands derived under the congressional grant to D. 0. Mills and Lloyd Tevis; and that, at the date of the commencement of this action, the legal title, right of possession, and, consequently, the right of action were in said Mills and Tevis, and not in said plaintiff; and for that reason said…
1Opinion of the CourtSawyer, C. J.
It is claimed by the plaintiff that the instrument in question is only a mortgage with a power of sale, the legal title and right of possession remaining in the mortgagor; while the defendant asserts that, under the provisions of the Code and the decisions of the courts of California, it is a trust deed which vests the legal title and the right of possession in the grantees and trustees, Mills and Tevis, and that the right of action in this case is vested in them alone.
In Platt v. Union Pac. R. Co. 99 U. S. 57, the supreme court of the United States held a similar instrument to be a mortgage.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Unger v. ShullSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1931
- Meehan v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1928