Legal Opinion

Deputy v. Stapleford & Willis

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1861PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from the First District. Bill to cancel two deeds—the one made by plaintiff on the twenty-eighth of July, 1858, to defendant Stapleford, the other made by Stapleford on the eighth of September, 1858, to defendant Willis—on the ground of fraud and duress. Prior to the twenty-eighth day of July, 1858, the plaintiff was the owner of certain real estate in the counties of San Bernardino and Tulare.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the First District. Bill to cancel two deeds—the one made by plaintiff on the twenty-eighth of July, 1858, to defendant Stapleford, the other made by Stapleford on the eighth of September, 1858, to defendant Willis—on the ground of fraud and duress. Prior to the twenty-eighth day of July, 1858, the plaintiff was the owner of certain real estate in the counties of San Bernardino and Tulare. On that day, defendant Stapleford, in conjunction with other parties conspiring with him to that end, compelled Deputy, then at Visalia, to execute to him a deed for all his real estate in the…

1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.

Cope, J. concurring.

It is to be regretted, for the sake of public justice, that the alleged outrage, in which the claim of the plaintiff to the relief he seeks in his bill had its origin, cannot be redressed by a restoration of the property of which he was lawlessly deprived. The deed to Stapleford, though procured by fraud and duress, was only voidable, and the vendee of Stapleford, purchasing in ignorance of the facts, can hold the property. This seems to be the rule supported by the general current of decisions. As no motion for a new trial was made and appealed from, we cannot review the…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. McNeil v. JordanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
  2. Isom v. Rex Crude Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Eberstein v. WilletsIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
  4. People ex rel. Dickenson v. BanvardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  5. Connecticut Life Insurance v. McCormickCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API