Carroll v. Ellis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. In 1864, the defendant Edward Ellis and his wife filed a declaration of homestead upon the premises in controversy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order refusing a new trial. In 1864, the defendant Edward Ellis and his wife filed a declaration of homestead upon the premises in controversy. In 1865, they executed a deed of conveyance of the undivided one half of said premises, in conjunction with other property, to Thomas B. Howard and W. H. Ladd, and Howard and Ladd, at the same time, and as a part of the same transaction, reconveyed to defendant Edward Ellis the same undivided one half. This last named conveyance was the only consideration…
1Per curiam
When the several transactions between these *442parties occurred a homestead right could not attach upon lands held in common, or by joint tenancy. (Kellersberger v. Kopp, 6 Cal. 563; Bishop v. Hubbard, 23 Cal. 517; Elias v. Verdugo, 27 Cal. 418.)
And in Kellersberger v. Kopp, 6 Cal. 565, it was held: “As husband and wife may, by joining in a conveyance, destroy a homestead right already acquired, so they may equally destroy it by selling and conveying a part of it, if it be done in the shape of an undivided moiety, so as to turn the estate into a tenancy in common; and when it has been thus…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Elias v. VerdugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Kellersberger v. KoppCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
3Cited by5 opinions
- Rosenthal v. Merced BankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Arighi v. Rule & Sons, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1940
- First Trust & Savings Bank v. WardenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
- Payne v. CummingsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Vieth v. KlettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948