Chapman v. Excelsior Canal Co.
Before: Baldwin
Synopsis
Where the language of the deed is, “ all that portion of the Union Banch lying south of two oak trees, marked ‘E. X. C.,’ the same being the northern boundary,” the true construction is that the deed passes only that portion of the ranch lying south of a line running through the trees named, and not that portion south of a line running through the trees and extending throughout the ranch.
Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. concurring.
This case involves the construction of a deed, which, after usual words of grant, describes the premises sold as all that portion of the Union ranch lying south of two oak trees, marked E. X. C. On reconsideration, we think the two trees mentioned were designed to mark a line of boundary, the portion of which tract south of the line being that conveyed. This construction gives effect to the language of the deed.
The Court gave a different construction to the deed, and for this error the judgment is reversed and cause remanded.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)