Downer v. Smith

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1864Published

Before: Sanderson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Alcalde grants are admissible as evidence of title, that quitclaim deeds are sufficient to maintain ejectment, and that probate courts lack jurisdiction over estates of persons who died prior to the state's organization. Furthermore, equitable defenses must be specifically pleaded in an action of ejectment to be admissible.

Issues

Whether an Alcalde grant is admissible as evidence of title without the official designation appended to the signature.
Whether the entry of a grant in an official record book constitutes prima facie evidence of delivery.
Whether a probate court has jurisdiction over the estate of a person who died before the state's organization.
Whether evidence of an equitable title is admissible in an ejectment action if not pleaded in the answer.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Probate Court had no jurisdiction over the probate of the will of a party who died before the organization of the State Government.”

“If the defendant in an action of ejectment desires to avail himself of an equitable defense as a bar, he must set it up with the same particularity which is observed in a bill in equity.”

Synopsis

Alcalde’s Books—When Received as Evidence.—An entry of a grant of land in the Pueblo de San José, made in the Book of Alcalde’s Grants, is entitled to be received in evidence upon proof that the persons by whom it is signed were the Alcalde and Clerk of said pueblo at the time it bears date, and that their signatures are genuine, and that the book was one of the books of the Alcalde’s office in which Alcalde grants were entered, and that the book belonged to the Recorder’s office of Santa Clara County.

Alcalde’s Grants.—The statement of an Alcalde’s official character, in the commencement of a grant signed by him, is sufficient to show that he acted in his official capacity, without a descriptio officii appended to his signature.

Same—Delivery of.—Where the original grant of an Alcalde is contained in the book of grants kept by him, no proof of a delivery of the grant is required. The production of the book has the same force arid effect upon the question of delivery as the production of an original deed or grant would have by one claiming under it.

Quitclaim Deed.—A quitclaim deed will enable the grantee to maintain ejectment for the land it conveys if his grantor could have done so.

Jurisdiction of Probate Courts.—Probate Courts have no jurisdiction to administer upon the estates of deceased persons who died prior to the adoption of the Constitution.

Records of Probate Courts. — Where a Probate Court administers upon the estate of such deceased person, its proceedings are not entitled to be received in evidence.

Equitable Defense to be Pleaded.—If a defendant in an action of ejectment desires to avail himself of an equitable defence as a bar, he must set it up in his answer with the same particularity which is observed in a bill in equity.

Court must Pass on Equitable Defense.—The Court, and not the jury, must pass upon the equitable title set up in the answer, and it must be sufficiently pleaded to warrant the Court in granting a decree which will estop the further prosecution of the action. The Statute of Limitations does not begin to run against the title to land derived from the Government of Mexico until a confirmation by a patent from the Government of the United States.

By the Court, Sanderson, C. J. The objection to the introduction of the book, called in the record “Book No. 3,” containing what purported to be Alcalde grants, is untenable. The book purported to contain the grant to one Jenkins, under whom the plaintiff claimed title to the premises in controversy. The grant in question, as appears from the book, was signed by one John Burton, and attested by one Charles White as Clerk. It was shown by the witness Harry Bee, who was sworn for that purpose, that at the time the grant bears date, Burton was the Alcalde of the Pueblo de [122]San José de Guadalupe, in which the land in controversy is located, and that White was his Clerk; that both Burton and White were dead; that the signatures of Burton and White, appended to the grant, were genuine, and that the book was one of the books of the Alcalde’s office in which Alcalde grants were entered. It further appears, from the testimony of the witness Tisdall, who was Deputy Recorder of Santa Clara County, (the county in which the land is located,) that the book belonged to the Recorder’s office of that county. From these facts, we think the Court was warranted in finding that the book was one of original entries, and therefore entitled to be admitted as evidence upon that ground; but whether upon that ground or not, the evidence was sufficient to entitle the book to admission under the provisions of the Act to legalize certain records in the Recorder’s office of the County of Santa Clara. (Statutes of 1861, 507.)

The further objection to the grant itself, on the ground that Burton had not appended to his signature his official designation, is, in our judgment, without merit. The Alcalde states his official character at the commencement of the grant, which, together with the fact already proved that he was the Alcalde at the time the grant bears date, was sufficient to show that he acted in his official capacity notwithstanding no descriptio officii was appended to his signature.

The objection that there was no proof of delivery is also untenable. The grant contained in the book being the original grant, it follows that there could have been no delivery to the grantee other than such as the entry of the grant in the book kept for that purpose imports, except by duplicate. The production of such duplicate, if any was given by the party claiming under the grant, would be prima facie evidence of delivery.

The second section of the Act above cited provides that the books of record mentioned therein (of which Book No. 3 is one) u * * * inay offered in evidence in the same manner and with the same force and effect in all cases as if they had been produced from the custody of the person claiming under or

Downer v. Smith

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief