Staton v. Buster

California Court of Appeal Oct 1, 1926 No. Docket No. 5044.Published

Before: Plummer

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a husband has the legal power to convey community real property acquired before the 1917 enactment of Civil Code section 172a without his wife's signature, and such a deed constitutes a good and marketable title.

Issues

Whether a husband may convey community real property acquired before 1917 without his wife's signature.
Whether a deed to pre-1917 community property signed only by the husband constitutes a good and marketable title.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The power of the husband to convey community real property acquired prior to the enactment of section 172a of the Civil Code in 1917, without the signature of his wife. That such power is vested in him may now be said to be beyond dispute.”

“The record in this case showing that the defendant tendered to the plaintiff a good and sufficient deed of conveyance of the real property involved and that the plaintiff declined to accept the same, it necessarily follows that the plaintiff has no action”

PLUMMER, J.

On or about the twenty-second day of August, 1925, the plaintiff was awarded judgment against the defendant in the sum of $750, from which judgment the defendant appeals.

The complaint upon which this action is based alleges, in substance, that the defendant agreed to convey to plaintiff a certain piece of real property situate in the town of Hamilton City, Glenn County, California, and was to receive in exchange therefor a certain Oakland tonring ear, $50 in cash, and a policy of insurance upon the car; that in pursuance of said agreement the plaintiff delivered to the defendant the ear in question, $10 in cash and offered to pay the remainder of said cash, and to furnish the policy of insurance upon receiving a deed to the real property agreed to he conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The complaint alleges further that the defendant failed to deliver to the plaintiff a deed sufficient to convey

[430]

a good title to said property; that thereafter the defendant abandoned the automobile which had been delivered to "him by the plaintiff; that the plaintiff repossessed said car and sold the same at public auction; that the sum received for said car was $575; that the reasonable market value of the real property agreed to be conveyed was the sum of $1,500; that the failure of the defendant to convey to the plaintiff the real property before referred to caused the plaintiff damage in the sum of $885.

Three questions are tendered to us for solution upon this appeal: 1. That the defendant tendered to the plaintiff a good and sufficient deed of conveyance, and that the plaintiff refused to accept the same; 2. That there was no sufficient memorandum in writing signed by the defendant to convey to the plaintiff the real property mentioned in plaintiff’s complaint; 3. That the court adopted the wrong measure of damages in computing the injury, if any, that had been caused the plaintiff by reason of any action of the defendant in the premises.

As a decision upon the first ground for appeal assigned by the appellant is determinative of this case, all that we might say upon the second and third grounds of error assigned would necessarily be superfluous, we will confine ourselves to a discussion of the first alleged error on the part of the trial court, to wit: the finding that the defendant had not tendered to the plaintiff a good and sufficient deed of conveyance.

Staton v. Buster

AI Brief

PLUMMER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief