Osborne v. Endicott
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. This was an action brought to compel the sale of a certain lot in San Francisco, and a division of the proceeds between the plaintiff and the defendant Endicott.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. This was an action brought to compel the sale of a certain lot in San Francisco, and a division of the proceeds between the plaintiff and the defendant Endicott. It appears from the evidence, that in 1849 the defendant, James B. Endicott, consigned certain merchandise to the plaintiff, T. W. Osborne, with authority to dispose of the same, and invest the proceeds in such manner as the plaintiff might see fit for the joint account of the plaintiff and Endicott. The plaintiff, when he sold the merchandise, was in partnership with S.…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Murray.
Mr. Justice Terry concurred.
The opinion of the Court below is based upon two propositions; first, that plaintiff is estopped by the recital of his deed to the defendant; and second, that the trust sought to be established is within the Statute of Frauds.
The general rule of law is, that recitals in a deed bind all persons who are parties or privies thereto; but this rule does not extend to that which is mere description, or an averment which is not essential. The doctrine of estoppels has always been construed with great…
2Cited by17 opinions
- Clark v. SayersWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1904
- Murphy v. ClaytonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Gas Appliance Sales Co. v. W. B. Bastian Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1927
- Fulton v. JansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Bevercombe v. Denney & Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1924
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.