Wenzel v. Schultz
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calaveras County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The deed being a mortgage, plaintiff was not the owner of the land. (Civ. Code, secs. 24, 29; Smith v. Smith, 80 Cal. 325.) There was no sale to Schultz by plaintiff, and he could not have a vendor’s lien. (Civ. Code, sec. 3044.) A grantee is not estopped to deny the title of his grantor. (San Francisco v. Lawton, 18 Cal. 476; 79 Am. Dec. 187; Osterhout v. Shoemaker, 3 Hill, 518; Sparrow v. Kingman, 1 N. Y. 253; Blight v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. 548; Propagation Society v. Pawlet, 4 Pet. 506; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 54; Barker v. Salmon, 2 Met. 32; Averill v. Wilson, 4 Barb. 180.) That the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Blight's Lessee v. RochesterSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
- Watkins v. Lessee of HolmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of PawletSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- City of San Francisco v. LawtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Averill v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Tully v. TullyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Peck v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Hollman v. J. S. Pattison & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1920