Duprey v. Moran
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. An action of ejectment was commenced the 5th of February, 1853, for a lot in the City of San Francisco. The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that the lot in question had been bought by the defendant Duprey, on the 13th of April, 1850, during the time of his marriage with the plaintiff; that they had since been divorced upon her application.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourth Judicial District. An action of ejectment was commenced the 5th of February, 1853, for a lot in the City of San Francisco. The plaintiff introduced evidence to show that the lot in question had been bought by the defendant Duprey, on the 13th of April, 1850, during the time of his marriage with the plaintiff; that they had since been divorced upon her application. The decree of divorce adjudged, among other things, that plaintiff should “have and recover” one-half of the common property, and also should recover the sum of $2,000 for the past maintenance of the child of…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Heydeneeldt
Mr. Ch, J. Murray concurred.
The statute regulating Sheriff’s sales of real estate does *197not design to invest a purchaser with title until six months after the expiration of the sale, the time allowed for a redemption by the judgment debtor or his creditors. This is made very clear, not only from the fact that no conveyance can be executed by the Sheriff until the expiration of the time mentioned, but also from the provision in [197] section 235, which furnishes a remedy * for the purchaser against waste which may be committed pending the period allowed for redemption.
This view of the question…
2Cited by6 opinions
- First National Bank v. MaxeyArizona Supreme Court · 1928
- Wood v. ConradSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- Simpson v. McCartyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Flagg v. DareCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Cantwell v. McPhersonIdaho Supreme Court · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.