Talbert v. Singleton
Before: Crockett, Wallace
Synopsis
The Sutter Title oe Sacramento Oity.&emdash;The deed of October 14th, 1848, from John A. Sutter, Sr., to John A. Sutter, Jr., has been directly decided to include the site of Sacramento Oity; and the question is no longer an open one.
Possession oe Land as Constructive Notice oe Possessor’s Title.&emdash; The actual possession of land, with the exercise of the usual acts of ownership and dominion over it, operates in law as constructive notice to all the world of the claim of title under which the possessor holds.
Equitable Title as Defense to Action under Legal Title.—Where the owner of land sold the same, and covenanted to execute a warranty deed therefor on payment of the purchase money, and the purchaser took and held actual possession, and afterwards paid the purchase money; held, that such purchaser’s, or his grantee’s, equitable title was a sufficient defense to an action of ejectment under the legal title, by the original owner, or any one holding under him, with notice.
Beattaching of Equities on Beyesting of Property.—Where Sutter, Jr., having covenanted to convey land, with warranty, to Holman, conveyed to his father, who afterwards conveyed hack to the son; held, that whether the father took with notice or not, the son, on receiving the re-conveyance, took the land charged with Holman’s equities.
Opinion — Crockett
By the Court, Crockett, J.: It is no longer an open question in this Court whether the deed of October 14th, 1848, from Sutter, Sr., to Sutter, Jr., includes the site of Sacramento City. In Mayo v. Marzeaux, 38 Cal. 442, we had this precise question under consideration, and held that the deed includes the site of said city. Rothing has since occurred to create a doubt as to the cor[393]rectness of that decision. On the contrary, the argument of the present case has but strengthened our former views on this point.
The plaintiff’s title to the demanded premises is deraigned as follows: First—Through a grant to Sutter, Sr., made by the Mexican Government in 1841, and which has been finally confirmed and patented to him. Second—A deed from Sutter, Sr., to Sutter, Jr., dated May 7th, 1850. Third—A deed from Sutter, Jr.,- to Mesick, dated July 9th, 1855. Fourth—Through regular mesne conveyances from Mesick to the plaintiff. This established a prima facie title in the plaintiff'.
To rebut this prima facie case the defendants set up: “ First—A conveyance from Sutter, Sr., to Sutter, Jr., dated October 14th, 1848, and a written contract made subsequently, in the latter part of that year, between Sutter, Jr., and Burnett, by which the former agreed to place all his town property in the hands of the latter for sale, and to give him one fourth of the proceeds of the sale as a compensation for his services. Second—A power of attorney from Sutter, Jr., to Burnett, dated 18th January, 1849, empowering him to sell at his discretion any property of the former situate in Sacramento City, and to convey the premises so sold to the purchasers by good and sufficient deeds, with covenants of warranty. Third—A sale by Burnett, as attorney in fact for Sutter, Jr., of the premises in controversy in this action to one Holman, prior to the 26th of June, 1849, and a title bond from Sutter, Jr., to Holman, whereby he bound himself to convey the property, with warranty, on the payment of the purchase money. • Fourth—A deed from Sutter, Jr., to Sutter, Sr., dated June 25th, 1849, whereby the former reconveyed to the latter all the property conveyed by the latter to the former by the deed of [394]
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)