Cranmer v. Porter
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff, on the, trial, introduced a deed of the demanded premises from the defendants to Elizabeth Osborn, their sister, dated December 15th, 1863, giving, granting, and conveying the premises to said Elizabeth, in consideration of love and affection.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. The plaintiff, on the, trial, introduced a deed of the demanded premises from the defendants to Elizabeth Osborn, their sister, dated December 15th, 1863, giving, granting, and conveying the premises to said Elizabeth, in consideration of love and affection. The habendum clause of the deed was as follows: “To have and to hold all and singular the above mentioned and described premises, together with the appurtenances, unto the said Elizabeth Osborn, during the term of her natural life as…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
The action is ejectment, and at the trial the plaintiff relied upon a paper title, which was put in evidence. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant moved for a new trial, partly on the ground of newly discovered evidence, to the effect that prior to the commencement of the action the plaintiff had sold, and by a deed in due form, properly acknowledged, certified, and delivered, had conveyed the premises in controversy to another person, and at the time of the conveyance had received a portion of the purchase money, and had taken the promissory…
2Cited by12 opinions
- Husheon v. KelleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Beckett v. City of PetalumaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Slaughter v. BernardsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
- Shelton v. VanceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
- Hall v. FergusonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.