McCreary v. Casey (1875) · DecisionDepot

McCreary v. Casey

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1875 No. No. 4109Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a contract for the purchase of land was unenforceable because the land was unsurveyed and subsequently reserved for a railroad, and the defendant's purchase from the United States did not constitute fraud or create an estoppel.

Issues

Whether a contract for the purchase of land is enforceable when the land was unsurveyed and later reserved for a railroad.
Whether the defendant's purchase of the land from the United States constitutes fraud against the plaintiff or creates an estoppel.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“During all that time the agreement alleged in the complaint was incapable of execution, as the lands could not have been purchased from the State by either party”

“It, therefore, cannot be said that the defendant, by his purchase from the United States, defrauded the plaintiff; nor that by reason of the agreement, or any other fact in the case, the defendant is estopped to rely on his title”

Synopsis

Enfoboemekt of Tbüst.—M. and 0. were both residing on an unsurveyed quarter section of public land, and agreed that it should be purchased from the State in the name of 0., and that each should furnish one-half the money to make the purchase, and pay one-half the expense, and own one-half the land, and that when the purchase was made from the State, C. should convey one-half to M. 0. afterwards pre-empted the land, and received a patent for it from the United States: Held, that before M. could have G. declared his trustee, and compel him to convey to him one-half the land, he must show that the land could have been purchased from the State by one of them; that is, that the State had held the title, and would have sold and conveyed it.

By the Court: At the date of the contract alleged in the complaint, the land in controversy was unsurveyed land of the United States, and could not then have been purchased from the State by either party; and before the plat of the survey was filed in the local land office, the lands had been withdrawn from sale and reserved in favor of the Central Pacific Bail-road and its branches, and so remained until it was purchased by the defendant in pursuance of his application as a pre-emptioner. During all that time the agreement alleged in the complaint was incapable of execution, as the lands could not have been purchased from the State by either party; and it is not shown that at any time after the lands have been so reserved for the railroad they could have been purchased from the State had the defendant not purchased them from the United States; that is to say, it is not shown that the railroad company would not have acquired the title had not the defendant purchased the lands in pursuance of his pre-emption claim. It, therefore, cannot be said that the defendant, by his purchase from the United States, defrauded the plaintiff; nor that by reason of the agreement, or any other fact in the case, the defendant is estopped to rely on his title so acquired from the United States.

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded.

McCreary v. Casey

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief