Fratt v. Fiske & Loring
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Eleventh District. February 8th, 1859, plaintiff was about to commence suit against defendants to eject them from certain lands lying in Yolo county, known as the Rancho de Capay. To avoid suit, defendants agreed to purchase the lands of which they were in actual possession, about four hundred acres, and also eleven hundred- acres additional, of which defendants have never had possession other than constructive possession by virtue of the deed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Eleventh District. February 8th, 1859, plaintiff was about to commence suit against defendants to eject them from certain lands lying in Yolo county, known as the Rancho de Capay. To avoid suit, defendants agreed to purchase the lands of which they were in actual possession, about four hundred acres, and also eleven hundred- acres additional, of which defendants have never had possession other than constructive possession by virtue of the deed. On that day plaintiff made them a deed, of grant, bargain and sale for the fifteen hundred acres, containing a warranty in the…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Field, C. J. concurring.
Plaintiff brought suit on a note and mortgage, the consideration of which was the conveyance of certain land in Yolo county. The defendants were in possession of a portion of this land at the time of the conveyance by the plaintiff, which was by deed with warranty; another portion was conveyed, of which the defendants went into possession. The defendants set up fraud in this, that the plaintiff represented the title was confirmed by the Federal Government, which representation, the defendants aver, was false. It seems that the defendants have been in possession since…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cullum v. Branch of the Bank of AlabamaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Younge v. Harris' AdministratorSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Stearns v. AguirreCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
- Calloway v. McElroySupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- M'Neven v. LivingstonCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1819
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Loaiza v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Bailey v. FoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Sixta v. OchsnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. OsterbergSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
- Brown v. BrownIllinois Supreme Court · 1892