Meister v. Lawrence

NOURSE, J.

Plaintiff commenced this action in ejectment involving the ownership of an undivided one-half interest in certain property situated in Contra Costa County. Defendant answered and filed a cross-complaint attacking plaintiff’s title as having been founded on fraud. Judgment went for defendant on this cross-complaint, quieting his title to the entire interest in the property, and from this judgment plaintiff appeals.

[175]

The facts of the case material to the opinion are that prior to the eighth day of February, 1918, defendant employed one Curtis as his agent to negotiate the purchase for him of the property in suit from one Kirk. The agent arranged with the owner for the purchase of the property for the full price of $43,768.40, of which amount the sum of $5,000 'was to be paid down and the balance was to be secured by a deed of trust upon the property. He then, in conjunction with one Goggins, fraudulently represented to defendant that the full purchase price of the property was $52,800, of which amount $13,000 must be paid down. Through the connivance of Curtis and Goggins the defendant was then induced to agree to permit Goggins to join in the purchase of the property upon the fraudulent terms which were thus presented to him, and for this purpose defendant, on February 8, 1918, entered into a written agreement with Goggins reciting that, whereas each of them had deposited the sum of $6,500 on account of the purchase price of $52,800 for the property and that the deed therefor was to be delivered in defendant’s name and Goggins had agreed to sign and execute a joint note and deed of trust for the balance of the purchase price of the property, he (Goggins) was declared to be the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the property. When defendant discovered that the purchase price of the property was but $43,768.40, that but $5,000 was paid to the owner, that Goggins paid in nothing, and that he and Curtis retained $T,500 of the $6,500 which defendant had paid as his half of the first payment, he immediately complained of the fraud, procured a warrant for the arrest of Goggins, and employed counsel to adjust the difficulties and protect his rights. About this time Curtis died and Goggins transferred his interest, evidenced by the paper of February 8, 1918, to one Wright. Plaintiff, who was a creditor of a partnership composed of Goggins, Curtis, and one other, on the fourteenth day of October, 1918, took a deed from Wright, conveying all the right, title, and interest in this property which he had received through the transfer from Goggins. No consideration was paid by plaintiff for this conveyance, but either a partial or complete adjustment of plaintiff’s claim against the Goggins partnership was made through the transaction. It is upon this chain of title that