Weisenberg v. Truman

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1881 No. No. 6,519Published

Before: McKee, Morrison, Sharpstein

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a city's conveyance of land in trust for a public cemetery is a valid exercise of its powers, and the legal title remains vested in the trustees so long as the trust purpose—protecting interred remains—is not fully accomplished. Consequently, the city's subsequent quitclaim deed to a third party did not convey title, as the city had already divested itself of the legal title through the prior trust deed.

Issues

Whether a city's conveyance of land to trustees for a public cemetery is ultra vires and void.
Whether the legal title to land held in trust for a cemetery reverts to the city once the cemetery ceases to be used for new interments.
Whether a subsequent purchaser of land has sufficient notice of a prior unrecorded trust deed when the deed of purchase references the land's prior dedication as a cemetery.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We are of the opinion that the deed from the city of Los Angeles to Mallard and his associates passed the legal title, and that the trust thereby created is still in force, or was at the time this suit was tried.”

“It is the right and duty of the trustees to protect those bodies from unlawful desecration, and it is their right to hold the property in order that that duty may be properly performed.”

Synopsis

Trust—Dedication to Pubuc Use—Notice of Unrecorded Deed—Action to Recover Read Estate.—The land was dedicated by the city of Los Angeles as a public cemetery, and conveyed to three trustees, but the deed was never recorded. Afterwards the cemetery was discontinued, and some of the bodies removed; but some still remained. Afterwards the City of Los Angeles, for a valuable consideration, made a quitclaim deed for the tract to one S. (referring to the premises as the ten-acre tract formerly dedicated for a public cemetery), and the Legislature, by the act of February 18th, 1872 (Stats. 1871-72, p. 93), legalized, ratified, and confirmed the said deed, and the ordinance under which it was made. In an action to recover the land by the grantees of S. against one of the trustees, and another holding under him, the Court found that the plaintiffs were purchasers under S. for valuable consideration, and at the time of purchasing and recording their deeds did not have actual notice of the trust deed, but did know that the premises had been dedicated and used as a cemetery, and had notice of facts sufficient to put them upon inquiry as to the true state of the title. Held, First—That the City of Los Angeles had power to make the deed to the Trustees. Second—That the deed itself imparted notice of the dedication of the land. And, third—That the deed passed the legal title to the trustees, and the trust was still in force; and that, therefore, the action could not be maintained.

Opinion — Morrison

Morrison, C. J.: Plaintiffs brought this action of ejectment in the District Court of Los Angeles County, for the recovery of a certain ■ tract of land situate in the City of Los Angeles. The action was tried by the Court, findings were filed by the Judge, and [67]upon such findings judgment was entered in favor of the defendants. The appeal is on the judgment roll, consisting of the complaint, answer, findings, and judgment. The following are the findings in the case:

" This cause was duly tried and submitted to the Court on the 6th day of June, 1878, a jury trial having been regularly waived, and all parties being present by counsel, and the evidence and pleadings and argument having been duly heard and considered, the Court now makes the following findings of fact, viz.:

“ 1. The lands described in the complaint are a part of the pueblo lands of the City of Los Angeles, and have been duly patented by the United States Government to the authorities of said city.

“ 2. In the year 1857 the authorities of said city set apart the lands described in the complaint as a public cemetery, and in pursuance of said action caused the same to be conveyed by a good and sufficient deed to three trustees, namely, N. A. Potter, J. S. Mallard (a defendant), and Ralph W. Emerson, in trust for the public use and for the purposes of a cemetery, which deed has never been recorded.

“ 3. Thereafter said tract was used for cemetery purposes, and bodies were interred there until the year 1861, when the City Council resolved to discontinue said cemetery and to remove the bodies already interred there to another place; since which time no further interments have taken place in said grounds. A number of the bodies were removed, and some still remain there interred.

“4. On the 14th of November, 1870, the City of Los Angeles, for a valuable consideration, made a deed of quitclaim to said tract to one T. A. Sanchez, describing the premises in said deed as the ‘ ten-acre tract of land formerly dedicated by the City of Los Angeles for a public cemetery, bounded by the homestead tract of J. S. Mallard and wife, and situated between Pico and Sixth streets; the same being the premises particularly described in the complaint as amended.’ That this is the deed that was mentioned in and confirmed by the Act of February 13, 1872 (Laws of 1871-72, p. 93), and that plaintiffs have duly succeeded to the title of said Sanchez, through mesne conveyances before

Weisenberg v. Truman

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Morrison

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Dissent — Sharpstein

Dissent — McKee

AI Brief