Tannahill v. Greening

California Court of Appeal Sep 30, 1927 No. Docket No. 4601.Published

Before: Peairs

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A deed in which the grantee's name is inserted without the grantor's written consent or presence is void. Furthermore, specifications of insufficiency of evidence are sufficient when they point to a particular finding.

Issues

Whether a deed is valid if the grantee's name is inserted without the grantor's written consent or presence.
Whether the appellant's specifications of insufficiency of evidence were sufficient to warrant review of the findings.
Whether the plaintiff is required to prove title when the defendant claims title through the plaintiff.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In regard to the first point, as it does not appear that the plaintiff was present when the grantee’s name was inserted, nor that his consent was in writing, we think the deed is unquestionably void.”

“A specification is sufficient when it points to a particular finding.”

PEAIRS, J.,

pro tem.

Plaintiff alleges that he was induced to make deeds, with grantee’s name in blank, to properties described in this action and that the deeds were placed in escrow with one Mollie L. Ramey; that the name of Mollie L. Ramey was later written in as grantee and then erased and the name of F. S. Greening written instead, all without his authority or consent. The defendants admit the filling in of grantee’s name in the deeds, but allege that both plaintiff and his wife were present and consented to the insertion of the name of F. S. Greening as grantee.

[716]

Bill of exceptions does not show either presence of plaintiff or consent in writing.

The defendants also allege that plaintiff later signed an agreement to transfer a certificate of water stock running with the land described in said deeds. Defendants further allege that plaintiff, after expressing dissatisfaction with aforesaid deal, accepted in full settlement of all claims against all defendants conveyance to him of certain properties in Canada, California, and New Mexico.

This court is compelled to rely upon the copies of pleadings, findings, judgment of the court, and bill of exceptions shown in the transcript for all statements of facts or evidence.

The law places the burden of proof with the plaintiff except as to his consent to the insertion of the name of grantee.

There are three points indicated by this bill of exceptions to which the court will give attention. First, whether a deed in which the grantee’s name has been inserted without plaintiff’s consent in writing, or not in his presence, is valid; second, the failure of appellant to express in what respect the evidence was insufficient to warrant certain designated findings; and third, plaintiff’s title.

In regard to the first point, as it does not appear that the plaintiff was present when the grantee’s name was inserted, nor that his consent was in writing, we think the deed is unquestionably void. In this connection we cite the following California cases:

Videau

Tannahill v. Greening

AI Brief

PEAIRS, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief