Tartar v. Hall
California Supreme Court
Appeal from, the Ninth Judicial District. This action was brought for the recovery of a promissory note, dated the 28th October, 1852, for f>1864, payable March, 1853, from defendant to plaintiff; and the complaint sets forth a mortgage of the same date, for securing the payment of the said note, on the day specified, which mortgage is a lien upon the land described, “a pre-emption claim of 160 acres of land, subject to the survey of the government,” and which was on the day…
Read the full summary
Appeal from, the Ninth Judicial District. This action was brought for the recovery of a promissory note, dated the 28th October, 1852, for f>1864, payable March, 1853, from defendant to plaintiff; and the complaint sets forth a mortgage of the same date, for securing the payment of the said note, on the day specified, which mortgage is a lien upon the land described, “a pre-emption claim of 160 acres of land, subject to the survey of the government,” and which was on the day of the execution of the said mortgage, transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant; and which contains a power to…
1Opinion of the CourtHeydenfeldt, Justice
Wells, Justice, concurred.
The mortgage executed by the defendant, operates an estoppel to the defence he has set up; according to well-established principles of public policy, for the security of good faith and fair dealing, a party is not allowed to controvert the declarations which he has made by deed, or to deny the enforcement of rights which he has thus attempted to confer.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by9 opinions
- Clark v. BakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Elizalde v. MurphyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Freiermuth v. SteiglemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Kirkaldie v. LarrabeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- Stewart v. PowersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.