Ragan v. Ragan
Before: Burnett
Synopsis
Deed—Delivery to Third Party—Vesting of Title—Essentials.—• It is absolutely essential to the validity and effectiveness of a deed in escrow that it be delivered to a third person for the grantee beyond any power in the grantor to recall or revoke it.
Id.—Quieting Title—Delivery of Deed—Finding Supported by Evidence.-—In this action to quiet title, wherein the real question at issue was whether or not the deed under which the defendant claimed title was ever in fact delivered by plaintiff’s intestate, it is held that the evidence is sufficient to support the finding that the grantor, about three weeks before Ms death, delivered the deed to the grantee with the intention that' the title should vest absolutely in the latter, regardless of whatever doubt may be entertained as to the sufficiency of the first manual tradition of the deed to constitute a legal delivery.
Id.—Community Property—Conveyance by Husband—Valuable Consideration—Consent op Wipe Not Necessary.—The husband has the right to make a conveyance of the community property without the consent of his wife, where it is made upon a valuable and adequate consideration.
BURNETT, J.
Plaintiff is the son and defendant a brother of one C. K. Ragan. Shortly after the birth of plaintiff his mother obtained a divorce from his father and the latter remarried in the year 1877. The father had no children by his second marriage, and he died intestate, on May 27, 1910, in the county of Kings, this state, leaving as his only heirs his widow, Mary E. Ragan, and plaintiff.
The complaint alleges that C. K. Ragan and his wife, after the year 1891, and prior to the 21st of November, 1906, acquired certain community property, including the land in controversy in this action, consisting of eighty acres of the value of eight thousand dollars; that, on the twenty-first day of November, 1906, C. K. Ragan signed an instrument purporting to be a deed conveying to the defendant said eighty acres of land. It is alleged, on information and belief, that said deed was never
delivered;
that there was no consideration for it, that it was in the nature of a gift, and was signed without the consent of the wife of said C. K. Ragan and with the intention on his part to defraud his wife and his son of their rights in the property. The complaint further alleged that plaintiff has been the owner of an undivided one-half interest in this real property since said twenty-seventh day of May, 1910. The prayer was for a decree quieting plaintiff’s said title and canceling said pretended deed. The answer put in issue the material allegations of the complaint, and the findings and judgment were in favor of defendant.
In his reply brief appellant declares: “It will be noticed from an inspection of these specifications (in the bill of
[65]
exceptions) that the real question at issue was whether or not the deed under which defendant claims title was ever in fact delivered by plaintiff’s intestate, C. K. Ragan. Plaintiff also specifies certain errors of law occurring at the trial and excepted to by him, consisting largely of rulings of the court in the admission of testimony.”
As to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of delivery, we can perceive no possible doubt. The law is, of course, as quoted by appellant from
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)