Morse v. Wright

California Supreme Court Mar 22, 1882 No. No. 7,568Published

Before: Ross

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant, who purchased the property for valuable consideration, holds superior legal title over the plaintiff, who received a quitclaim deed without consideration from a grantor who had already divested his interest.

Issues

Whether a quitclaim deed from a grantor who previously conveyed the property to another conveys valid title to a grantee who paid no consideration.
Whether a subsequent purchaser for valuable consideration is protected against a prior unrecorded conveyance.
Whether the doctrine of estoppel applies to prevent a purchaser for value from denying the title of a prior grantee who paid no consideration.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The title to the property was not in Jay when the deed was made. It had been previously conveyed by him to Salmi Morse.”

“as respects subsequent purchasers, it is only subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration, who are protected against prior conveyances unrecorded, within which category plaintiff does not come.”

“We see no ground for the operation of the doctrine of estoppel in favor of the plaintiff as against the defendant.”

Synopsis

Unbecobded Deed—Subsequent Pubchaseb in Good Faith—Recital or Consideration in Deed—Evidence.—M. purchased land, but caused the deed to be taken in the name of J., and the deed was duly recorded. M. took possession, and afterwards at his request the property was conveyed to him by J.; but the deed was not recorded until after the commencement of this action. Afterwards, at the instance of M., J. made a deed to the plaintiff, then a single woman but subsequently the wife of M. This deed recited a consideration of six thousand dollars, and was delivered and recorded after the marriage—the plaintiff having no notice of the former deed; but there was no proof as to the consideration. Afterwards M. sold and conveyed the land to the defendant for the sum of twelve thousand dollars. J. sues to recover the land.

B eld: It is apparent that the legal title to the premises is with defendant. It is only subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration who are protected against prior conveyances unrecorded; within which category plaintiff does not come.

Id.—Id.—Id.—Id.—Estoppel.—There is no ground for the operations of the doctrine of estoppel in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant.

Ross, J.: The action is ejectment for a tract of land in Mendocino county. It appears from the record that the land was purchased on the third of November, 1858, by Salmi Morse from [262]Solada Duarte and husband (the then owners) for the sum of four thousand dollars—the deed being by Morse’s direction, executed by the Duartes to one Robert Jay. This deed was duly recorded, and under it Morse took possession of the property. A few days afterward, that is to say, on the seventeenth of November, 1858, at the instance of Morse, Jay executed to him (Morse) a deed of conveyance of the land. This deed was not recorded until after the commencement of the present action. On the twenty-ninth of November, 1875, Morse, in consideration of the sum of twelve thousand dollars paid to him by the defendant, Anna E. Wright, executed to her a deed of conveyance of the land, under which deed defendant entered into possession of the premises as owner thereof, and has so remained ever since. The findings of the Court further show that Morse, from the time of his purchase on the third of November, 1858, until his sale to the defendant on the twenty-ninth of November, 1875, was, by himself and through tenants, in the possession of the land, claiming it as his own, and exercising repeated, open and notorious acts of ownership of it.

From the above facts it is apparent that the legal title to the premises is in the defendant, Anna E. Wright.

But there are other facts in the case and they are these: Some months after the execution of the deed from Jay to Salmi Morse conveying to the latter the demanded premises, that is to say, on the thirtieth of May, 1859, Jay signed and acknowledged as grantor, a quitclaim deed, which was drawn by Salmi Morse, purporting to quitclaim the said premises to Harriet Jay Elliott, who was then in England. This deed was so drawn, signed and acknowledged without the knowledge or request of the grantee, and without any consideration paid therefor. Shortly after this Harriet Jay Elliott came to California from England, pursuant to an engagement with Salmi Morse to marry him, made about a year prior thereto; and they were married at San Francisco, July 9,1859.

There was no marriage contract between them relative to the demanded premises or to any other property.

Up to the time of the marriage, the deed drawn by Salmi Morse from Robert Jay to Harriet Jay Elliott had not been delivered. The Court below found that it never was delivered. We are inclined to think this finding ought to have been

Morse v. Wright

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief