People v. Garnett (1868) · DecisionDepot

People v. Garnett

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1868Published

Before: Sanderson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. To sustain a conviction for the fraudulent sale of land under the statute, the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud either the first or second purchaser; where the evidence shows the second purchasers had full knowledge of the prior conveyance, no such fraud exists.

Issues

Whether the defendant's second sale of land constituted a criminal fraud under the statute when the second purchasers had full knowledge of the prior conveyance.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is not, in our judgment, the slightest ground for declaring the transaction fraudulent on the part of the defendant.”

Synopsis

What Constitutes the Offense of Selling Land Twice, as Defined in the One Hundred and Thirty-second Section of the Act Concerning Crimes and Punishments.—To justify a conviction of the offense defined in the one hundred and thirty-second section of the Act concerning crimes and punishments, it is necessary to charge in the indictment and prove at the trial: first—the first and second sales, barter, or disposal of the land, as therein specified; and second—that said second sale, barter or disposal of the land was for a valuable consideration, and was made fraudulently—that is, with intent to defraud either the first or second purchaser.

Idem.—In such case, where the second sale was made to parties at their request, and after being fully informed by the grantor of the fact and the tenor of the first sale: Held, that the second sale was not fraudulent within the meaning of the statute.

By the Court, Sanderson, J.: The indictment in this case was found under the one hundred and thirty-second section of the statute in relation to crimes and punishments. That section is found in the twelfth subdivision of the statute which treats of “ offenses committed by cheats, swindlers, and other fraudulent persons,” and reads as follows: “Any person or persons after once selling, bartering, or disposing of any tract or tracts of land, town lot or lots, who shall again knowingly and fraudulently sell, barter, or dispose of the same tract or tracts of land, town lot or lots, or any part thereof, or shall knowingly and fraudulently execute any bond or agreement to sell or barter or dispose of the same land, or lot or lots, or any part thereof, to any other person or persons for a valuable consideration, every such offender, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the State Prison not less than one nor more than ten years.”

Cheats which are leveled against public justice, as judicial acts done without authority in the name of another, and frauds which affect the Government and the public at large, as rendering false accounts by persons in official positions, writing false news, selling unwholesome provisions, and using false weights and measures, were indictable at common law. But cheats and frauds not calculated to affect the public in any way, and committed in the course of private transactions, and affecting only the parties concerned, as by lying and false [473]representations, were not indictable at common law. (2 Russ, on Crimes, 275, et seq.) This limited scope of the common law proved inadequate to the protection of society against cheats, swindlers, and other fraudulent persons. So various statutes were from time to time passed, as occasion required, to counteract and hold in check the fraudulent inventions and contrivances of that class of persons. Accordingly the statute of 13 Eliz., c. 5, entitled “An Act against Fraudulent Conveyances, Deeds, Gifts, Alienations, etc.,” was passed, and it was thereby made a criminal offense to convey lands, tenements, hereditaments, goods, or chattels, and the like, with intent to hinder and delay creditors and others of their lawful actions, debts, damages, penalties, and the like. This statute of 18 Eliz. is substantially embodied in the one hundred and twenty-ninth section of the statute of this State in relation to crimes and punishments. ¡Next came the statute of 27 Eliz., c. 4, which made it a criminal offense for any person to sell or convey land, and the like, with intent to defraud previous or subsequent purchasers. This latter statute is substantially incorporated in the one hundred and thirty-second section of the statute of this State in relation to crimes and punishments, which is the section under which the indictment in this case was found. (2 Russ, on Crimes, 314, et seq.)

Related research

To constitute the offense charged in this indictment, it [475]must appear that there was: first, a sale and conveyance to Barrett; second, a sale and conveyance to Muldrow, Waterhouse, and Babcock, for a valuable consideration; third, that the latter sale was made fraudulently, that is to say, with intent to defraud either Barrett, or Muldrow, Waterhouse, and Babcock. The fraudulent character of the transaction must not only be averred, but proved; and it is claimed on the part of the defendant that the testimony not only fails to show a fraudulent intent, but emphatically negatives the idea that there was any. The point is well taken. There is no conflict whatever in the evidence. It shows that the defendant sold and conveyed, for a valuable consideration, to Barrett. There is no pretense but that the deed was sufficient in law, and passed the entire interest of the defendant in the land to Barrett. Barrett could not, therefore, be defrauded by a subsequent conveyance, unless first recorded. Barrett’s conveyance was duly recorded, and the conveyance to Muldrow, Waterhouse, and Babcock, was not recorded at any time, or at least had not been up to the time of the trial. When Muldrow, Waterhouse, and Babcock proposed to purchase, they were told by the defendant, and otherwise informed, according to their own testimony, that he had sold and conveyed to Barrett, and the deed was of record. Ho deceit or fraud was practiced by the defendant, either by misrepresentation or suppression of facts. What advantage or benefit Muldrow, Waterhouse, and Babcock expected to derive from the purchase, it is impossible to conjecture. But, be that as it may, it is certain that under the circumstances they were not and could not be damaged or injured in consequence of their purchase, for they purchased with full knowledge of all the facts. There is not, in our judgment, the slightest ground for declaring the transaction fraudulent on the part of the defendant. If there was any fraud designed, it must have been on the part of Muldrow, Waterhouse, and Babcock. So far as the defendant was concerned, he seems to have acted, not only in the utmost good faith, but with unusual prudence and caution, for he refused [476]to do a harmless act, until advised by counsel, whom lie consulted, that he could do so without any violation of the law.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief