Chandler v. Chandler

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1880 No. No. 6,344Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that even if a deed is inoperative as a common-law conveyance of legal title, a Court of Equity has the power to enforce the instrument as a contract to effectuate the parties' intent by decreeing appropriate conveyances.

Issues

Whether a deed attempting to create a freehold in futuro is enforceable in a Court of Equity.
Whether a Court of Equity may order specific conveyances to carry out the intent of an instrument that fails as a common-law grant.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Admitting the instrument cannot be enforced as a grant, it is a contract on the part of the bargainer to transfer the whole legal estate to the bargainee, and on the part of the latter to convey a life estate to the former.”

Synopsis

Action to Quiet Title—Equity—Return of Consideration—Maxim—A plaintiff cannot come into a Court of Equity, and ask for a decree debarring the defendant from asserting a claim under an instrument executed by the former, without restoring the consideration received by him.

Id.—Id.—Deed—Bargain and Sale—Statute of Uses.—The plaintiff, and his wife, in the year I860, executed to the defendant a deed whereby, in consideration of the sum of $2,000, they granted, bargained, and sold to the defendant and his heirs and assigns forever, a certain tract of land; but it was expressly provided, and the deed was made upon the express condition, that the parties of the first part should have and retain the entire use and control of the said demised premises, so long as they, or either. of them, should live. In an action to quiet title, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, this deed was adjudged to be void, and the plaintiff’s title to be good.

Upon appeal, held—assuming that the deed was inoperative as a common law conveyance, because an attempt to create or convey a freehold to commence in futuro:

1st. That a freehold to commence in futuro could be created by a bargain and sale, operating under the Statute of Uses; and that, if the Statute of Uses was part of our law, prior to the Codes, the deed was valid.

2nd. That, if the Statute of Uses was not in force in this State when the deed was executed, the bargain and sale would be recognized and enforced in a Court of Equity, as it would have been before the statute.

3rd. That in either case, the Court, as a Court of Equity, had power to settle and determine the actual rights of the parties, and prevent future complications, by decreeing a formal conveyance of the fee from the plaintiff to the defendant, and a reconveyance for the life of the former by the 'latter, and this should have been done.

Statute of Uses.—Query, whether the Statute of Uses, (27 Henry 8, eh. 10) was ever in force in this State.

Statute of Enrollments.—The Statute of Enrollments (27 Henry viii, ch. 10) has never been in force iu this State.

McKinstry, J.: The plaintiff prays for a decree quieting his title to certain lands, and that defendant has no claim or title thereto. Defendant relies upon an instrument hereinafter recited, which was executed and delivered by plaintiff in consideration of two thousand dollars paid him by defendant. It is perfectly obvious that plaintiff cannot come into a Court of Equity and ask for a decree debarring defendant from asserting any claim under the instrument, without restoring the money.

But defendant has set forth the nature of his claim, and is entitled to have his rights adjudicated. The decision of this case, therefore, must turn upon the construction of the instrument following:

“ This indenture, made the fifth day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, between Solomon Chandler and Naomi Chandler, his wife, of the County of Yolo, and State of California, parties of the first part, and Gates S. Chandler, the party of the second part, witnesseth, that the said parties of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of two thousand dollars in gold coin of the United States of America, to them in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold, aliened, remised, released, conveyed, and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, convey, and confirm unto the said party of the second part, and to his heirs and assigns forever, all that certain lot, piece, or parcel of land, situate, lying, and being in the County of Yolo, and State of California, and bounded and particularly described as follows, to wit: the north half of the south-east quarter of section thirty (30), and [270]the north half of the south-west quarter of section twenty-nine (29), all in township nine (9) north, range two (2) east, Mt. Diablo base and meridian, containing one hundred and sixty acres.

“ Provided always, and this indenture is made upon the express condition, that the said parties of the first part shall have and retain the entire use and control of said demised premises, so long as they or either of - them shall live, and anything in this- indenture to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding.

“ Together with all and singular the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof, and also all the estate, right, title, interest, homestead, property, possession, claim, and demand whatsoever, as well in law as in equity, of the said parties of the first part, of, in, or to the said premises, and every part and parcel thereof, with the appurtenances. To have and to hold, all and singular, the said premises, together with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever. And the said parties of the first part and their heirs, the said premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns, against the said parties of the first part and their heirs, and against all and every person and persons whomsoever, lawfully claiming or to claim the same, shall and will warrant, and by these presents forever defend.

Chandler v. Chandler

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief