Byers v. Neal
Before: Wallace
Synopsis
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.
This was an action to have the defendant adjudged to hold the legal title of one hundred and thirty-seven acres of land in San Joaquin County, acquired under a patent of the United States, in trust for the plaintiff; to • compel him to convey the same to plaintiff; to enjoin defendant from conveying or transferring to any other person; to quiet plaintiff’s title; and for general relief. Defendant, among other defenses set up, by way of cross-complaint, that plaintiff' had been let into possession under a judgment in ejectment founded upon a Sheriff’s deed; that such deed was executed after the Sheriff’s authority to make it had terminated; that he was ignorant of such want of authority at the time the ejectment case was tried, and praying that said deed might be set aside and declared null and void.
The cross-complaint was dismissed; there was a judgment for plaintiff as prayed; and defendant’s motion for a new trial having been overruled, he appealed from the judgment and order.
By the Court,
Wallace, J.: The fact that Neal was in the possession of the premises in controversy, as a preemptioner, when they were sold and conveyed by the Sheriff, under the judgment rendered against him, will not defeat the title of the purchaser at the Sheriff’s sale—Neal having already made his full payment to the Government as such preemptioner. Tallmadge, from whom Byers derives his title, was the grantee of the Sheriff, and, before he conveyed to Byers, brought an action against Neal, who was then in possession, for the recovery of the premises, in which action he alleged that he was the owner and entitled to the possession. Upon this allegation issue was taken by N eal, and j udgment rendered in favor of Tallmadge for the recovery of the premises, with damages and [214]costs, under which judgment Real was subsequently removed, and Tallmadge placed in possession by the Sheriff.
It will be seen that the title to the premises was thus brought directly in issue; and the judgment then rendered •must conclude Real in favor of Byers, as the privy of Tallmadge, upon that question.
The defenses which Real now attempts to interpose, though they might have defeated the former action, had they been established then, cannot avail him now.
Judgment affirmed.
[A rehearing having been afterwards granted on petition of defendant, the following opinion was rendered at this, the January Term, 1872:]
By the Court,
Wallace, J.: In November, 1863, Real was a settler upon certain public lands in San Joaquin County, being the southwest, fractional quarter of section thirty-two, township four north, range seven east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, and had made proof and payment therefor under the' preemption laws of the United States.
In 1865 Tallmadge brought an action against Real in the District Court at Stockton, in which he alleged himself to be the owner of these premises, and in that action Real appeared and pleaded the general issue—the pleadings not being verified—and upon the trial judgment was rendered in favor of Tallmadge, and he was placed in possession of the premises.
1. The effect of the recovery, under the pleadings in that action, is that Real is thereby estopped to deny that Tallmadge then had the better title to the premises, and this estoppel must preclude him in favor of Tallmadge, and also in favor of Byers, the subsequent vendee of Tallmadge, to
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)