Woodson v. McCune (1861) · DecisionDepot

Woodson v. McCune

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1861Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the jury's special finding regarding notice was insufficient because it was equivocal and failed to clearly establish the facts of possession. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Whether the jury's special finding regarding notice was sufficient to support a judgment.
Whether the verdict distinctly found the facts put in issue to warrant a judgment for the defendants.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The special finding is insufficient on the question of notice by Woodson, of the sale from McDowell to McCune.”

“But this response is too equivocal; it neither directly finds the fact of possession, nor the time of it, nor the kind of possession.”

“Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.”

Synopsis

In ejectment for a tract of land—plaintiff claiming under a deed from one McDowell—the case turned upon the question whether plaintiff, at the time of his purchase from McDowell, had notice of a prior verbal sale of the land from McDowell to defendant. The jury to whom this question had been submitted in special issues, returned a verdict—“If possession was notice, he had:” Held, that this finding is insufficient, because equivocal—neither finding directly the fact of possession, nor the time of it, nor the kind of possession.

The rule in Hunter v. Watson §• Vance (12 Cal. 363) as to possession being notice of a sale or conveyance, is not confined to the case of an unrecorded deed, but applies as well to any other title consistent with the possession.

This Court refused in this case to render judgment in favor of defendants upon the findings, on the ground that the verdict does not find the facts in issue with sufficient distinctness.

Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.

The judgment must be reversed. The special finding is insufficient on the question of notice by Woodson, of the sale from McDowell to McCune. The answer of the jury ‘to the issue presented was in this form: “ Yes, if the possession is notice.” But this response is too equivocal; it neither directly finds the fact of possession, nor the time of it, nor the kind of possession.

We are asked to render judgment here upon the findings in favor of the defendants; but apart from other objections, we think the verdict does not so distinctly find the facts put in issue as to warrant us in so ordering. (See tenth and eleventh issues and findings.)

In respect to the question of notice of a sale or conveyance, as furnished by possession, we need only refer to the previous decisions of this Court. Hunter v. Watson (12 Cal. 363) was not de'signed to confine the application of the principle to an unrecorded deed; but the same rule would apply as well to any other title consistent with the possession. (See Bryan v. Ramirez, 8 Cal. 461.)

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

[305]On petition for rehearing, the opinion was rendered by the same Justices as follows:

The general verdict was not rendered by their own volition by the jury, but merely by the order of the Court, and that apart from the special findings upon disputed facts.

Woodson v. McCune

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief