Truebody v. Jacobson
California Supreme Court
The bill in complaint sets forth that the plaintiff on the 12th of July, 1850, had instituted a suit in this Court against Domingo Guzman,-Rosenwig, Lewis Lusk and Harvey Sparks, to recover the amount of a promissory note made by said Guzman to the plaintiff, for the sum of $6160.74, dated April 1st, 1850, and due ninety days after date, with interest at the rate of two per cent, per1 month, and to enforce the recovery of said note, by a sale of a certain lot, &e., then in…
Read the full summary
The bill in complaint sets forth that the plaintiff on the 12th of July, 1850, had instituted a suit in this Court against Domingo Guzman,-Rosenwig, Lewis Lusk and Harvey Sparks, to recover the amount of a promissory note made by said Guzman to the plaintiff, for the sum of $6160.74, dated April 1st, 1850, and due ninety days after date, with interest at the rate of two per cent, per1 month, and to enforce the recovery of said note, by a sale of a certain lot, &e., then in possession of Lewis Lusk. That a final judgment or decree Vas made in said suit on the 81st January, 1851, in favour of…
1Opinion of the Court
For plaintiff it was argued that this was an original bill, in the nature of a bill of review. 1 Story’s Eq. Plead. § 455.
1st. If the decree be allowed to stand, then defendant, Wilson, gets the property without pretending that he paid any consideration for it. This is wrong in itself, and the claim inequitable and fraudulent. 6 How. S. C. R. 189.
2nd. We are entitled to a decree; for the answer does not set up that defendant is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice. 2 Peters, 209. 211. 212. 213. 207.
3rd. This being a contract to convey, on the performance of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Root v. StuyvesantNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Campbell v. StakesCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1828
- Hunt v. WickliffeSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Henry v. CuylerCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1819
3Cited by10 opinions
- Booker v. AitkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Selna v. SelnaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. BranderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
- Curtis v. San Pedro Transportation Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
- Hill v. GrigsbyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.