Call v. Hastings
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. This action was brought to recover the possession of the real estate in the complaint described, in the possession of the defendant. Both parties claimed title under Gideon B. Stephens. The plaintiffs claimed by sheriff’s deed, dated the 14th December, 1850, of the property in dispute.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District, Sacramento County. This action was brought to recover the possession of the real estate in the complaint described, in the possession of the defendant. Both parties claimed title under Gideon B. Stephens. The plaintiffs claimed by sheriff’s deed, dated the 14th December, 1850, of the property in dispute. Stephens had executed, on the 19th February, 1850, to one John Eddy, a mortgage of the premises, which mortgage was first in date, and which plaintiffs averred was the first incumbrance at the time of the sale. It was acknowledged before J. A. Thomas,…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, Justice
Wells, Justice, concurred.
It is unnecessary to decide whether the mortgage under which the plaintiffs claim, was valid under the Mexican municipal laws which prevailed at the time it was made. Its validity may be conceded, and if so, it not only was unaffected, but was specifically protected by the act concerning conveyances, passed April 16, 1850.
*183That act, however, introduced a new rule for the government of these contracts, not as affecting their validity, but in respect to their relation to the rights of other parties which might after-wards grow up.
The act referred to, after providing for…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Chamberlain v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1857
- Clark v. TroyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- National Surety Co. v. Wyandotte Coal & Lime Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1907
- Lubbock State Bank v. H. O. Wooten Grocery Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1915
- Anderson v. FiskCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.