Howlin v. Castro
California Supreme Court
The main facts are stated in the opinion. The recital referred to in the opinion, as having been made at the close of the deed, consisted of the following words immediately following the habendum clause, and preceding the attesting clause: “This deed is to be left in care of J. W. Bowling until my death, and then to be delivered to the party of the second part herein.”
1Opinion of the Court
CHIPMAN, C.
The court made the following findings: 1. Plaintiff is, and since December 1,1894, has been, the owner in fee of the land in question; 2. In the month of March, 1895, plaintiff and defendant Castro made an oral agreement, Castro agreeing “to personally care for and attend upon plaintiff as long as the latter should live, without cost or expense to plaintiff”; 3. Plaintiff agreed with Castro, “upon full performance by Castro of his said agreement plaintiff would 'convey to Castro said real property at the death of plaintiff”; 4. On May 16, 1895, plaintiff, at Castro’s solicitation,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bury v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Lawrence v. GayettyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Thurber v. MevesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Thomas v. ThomasOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- King v. GildersleeveCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Alder v. DrudisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Moore v. TrottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Fontaine v. LacassieCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- Keyes v. MeyersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Long v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.