Meyers v. Farquharson

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1873 No. No. 2,713Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a bill of sale for a mining claim was valid despite informal language and lack of consideration, and that a probate court sale of a decedent's property does not constitute a mortgage foreclosure or convey title superior to a prior valid transfer.

Issues

Whether a bill of sale for a mining claim is void for uncertainty or lack of consideration.
Whether a probate court order of sale acts as a mortgage foreclosure.
Whether a defendant's subsequent possession of property precludes a trespass action by the rightful owner.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“No precise form of words is necessary in a bill of sale. If it be clear that the maker intended to make a bill of sale, and to pass thereby the title to property, the law will, if possible, so construe the words used as to effectuate that intent.”

“The Probate Court is not a Court of equity, and it has no power to foreclose a mortgage. Sales made under its orders pass only such title as the decedent had at the time of his death, and such as the estate may have subsequently acquired.”

Synopsis

Bill of Sale of Mining Claim. — No precise form of words is necessary to work a conveyance in a bill of sale for a mining claim. If it be clear from the language of the instrument that the maker intended to pass thereby the title to the property, the law will, if possible, so construe the words used as to effectuate that intent.

Description in a Conveyance.—A conveyance of land- is not void'on its face for uncertainty in the description of the property sold, if so far as can be seen from the description itself, the points named as boundaries, may be well known monuments, easily found.

Gift of a Mining Claim.—The owner of a mining claim may give away the same by a written bill of sale, and such bill of sale is not to be rejected as evidence because it was a gift.

Title Acquired Under Probate Sales.-—If a claim secured by a mortgage made by the decedent during his life, is allowed by his executors, and the mortgaged property is sold by them, and the proceeds are applied on the claim, and the sale is approved by the Probate Court, the purchaser does not take by relation the title which the mortgagor had at. the date of the mortgage, but only such title as the mortgagor had at the time of his death, and such as the estate may have subsequently acquired.

Sale by Probate Court.—A sale by the Probate Court to satisfy a claim against the estate, secured by a mortgage made by the testator, is not in effect a foreclosure of the mortgage.

Probate Court.—A Probate Court is not a Court of equity and has no power to foreclose a mortgage. »

Conveyance Without Consideration.— The title of one who obtains a conveyance without any consideration cannot be assailed by another who is neither a creditor of the grantor nor in the place of a creditor.

Trespass for Entry Upon Land.—One who enters. wrongfully upon the land of another is a trespasser, and he does not cease to be such so that an action will not lie against him for a trespass, because be is allowed for one month after his entry to remain in the undisturbed possession.

By the Court, Belcher, J.: This is an action to recover damages for certain trespasses alleged to have been committed upon the plaintiff’s mining claim. The defendants deny the plaintiff’s title to the claim, and set up title in themselves. It is admitted that the claim in dispute is a part of a larger claim, known as the Willow Bar claim, which formerly belonged to one James Hudson, under whom both parties claim title. To establish his own title, the plaintiff proved that in January, 1868, Hudson made a verbal sale of the claim to him, and in the August following placed him in possession of it, and that he then began to mine on the claim, and continued mining there until November, when he was stopped by high water. He also proved that in March, 1869, Hudson made and delivered to him a bill of sale, which reads as follows :

“Michigan Bluff, March 9th, 1869.

“This is to certify that on or about the 1st day of January, 1868, that I presented to and sold C. G. Myers, and on or about the 1st of July, 1868, did give the said C. G. Myers possession, by a verbal agreement, of a certain piece of ground; and, to avoid further trouble in regard to said claim, I do this day give him a clear bill of sale, defining the lines as before, thus: Commencing at an oak bush near the gate of Myers’ cowyard, running straight across the river to the head of the wingdam put in by Owens & Co., in 1868; from thence to a prominent point of granite bedrock in El Dorado County; from this line down to the old Willow Bar line; to have and to hold the same, his heirs, assigns forever. The said C. G. Myers agrees to not back the water or interfere with the above ground in shape or manner belonging to me, and known as the Willow Bar claim.

“Witness my hand: JAMES HUDSON.

“Witness: Ed. Blifka.”

[199]The defendants objected to this paper being received in evidence, on the ground that it appeared upon its face to be void for uncertainty, and to be a gift without consideration. The Court overruled the objection, and we think rightly. It is claimed that it is uncertain because it uses no words of conveyance, and because it does not state in what township, county, or State the property is situated. No precise form of words is necessary in a bill of sale. If it be clear that the maker intended to make a bill of sale, and to pass thereby the title to property, the law will, if possible, so construe the words used as to effectuate that intent. On looking at this paper, there can be no doubt that Hudson intended to make a bill of sale which would pass whatever title to the mining claim described still remained in him.

Meyers v. Farquharson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief