Briswalter v. Palomares

California Supreme Court Dec 19, 1884 No. No. 9,716Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court's findings regarding the validity of the deed and the absence of fraud were supported by substantial evidence. The court further held that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in denying a new trial based on cumulative evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings that the deed was made in good faith and for valuable consideration were supported by the evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the defendant's payment of other debts or the grantor's post-conveyance declarations.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to recall a witness or denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was a substantial conflict in the evidence bearing on the issue passed upon in the foregoing finding, and, under the established rule here, we cannot interfere with the finding.”

“The evidence stated in the affidavits to be newly discovered is cumulative.”

Synopsis

Evidence—Payment of Husband’s Debts by Widow—Inference.—The mere fact that a widow paid all the debts of her deceased husband except one, does not tend to establish an obligation on her part to pay that one also.

Id.—Declarations of Vendor.—The declarations of a vendor, made after the sale, are not admissible in evidence against Iris vendee.

Discretion—Recalling Witness.—It is not an abuse of discretion for the court to refuse to allow a witness to be recalled after the case has been continued for argument.

McKinstry, J. The plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges that the deed from Francisco Palomares to Trinidad Yorba, dated July 24, 1879, purporting to convey all his right, title and interest in San Jose rancho, for the expressed consideration of §6,000, although absolute on its face, conveyed no beneficial interest to the said Yorba, but the conveyance was to him in trust for said Francisco Palomares, and was made without consideration, and for the purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding [260]the creditors of said Palomares, and especially the plaintiff herein.

The court helow found :

“ The deed of conveyance from the said Francisco Palomares to said Trinidad Yorba, mentioned in the complaint, conveyed to the said Trinidad Yorba the whole beneficial interest in all the property therein purported to be conveyed ; and said deed was not made, nor was said property or any part thereof, or interest therein, conveyed to said Trinidad Yorba in trust for said Francisco Palomares ; and said deed was not made without consideration, and for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding the creditor or creditors, or any creditor, of the said Francisco Palomares, or the plaintiff, or any other person; but said deed was made in good faith, and for a valuable and adequate consideration moving at the time of its execution from the said Trinidad Yorba to said Francisco Palomares.”

There was a substantial conflict in the evidence bearing on the issue passed upon in the foregoing finding, and, under the established rule here, we cannot interfere with the finding.

The court also found :

“ The said deed of conveyance was not made as security ; and there was no understanding at any time between the said Francisco Palomares and the said Trinidad Yorba, that the property purporting to be conveyed in said deed, or any part thereof, or interest therein, should be held by the said Yorba in trust for the said Francisco Palomares in any event; and there was no understanding between the said Yorba and the said Francisco, at any time, that the property purporting to be conveyed in said deed should be re-conveyed to said Francisco Palomares, or to any other person, or that there should be a reconveyance or a resale of said property, or any part thereof, or any interest therein, to the said Francisco, or any other person ; but the understanding between the parties to said deed, at the time of its execution, was, that it should convey to the said Trinidad Yorba all the property therein purported to be conveyed, and that said Francisco Palomares should not retain any beneficial or other interest in said property, or any part thereof.”

Briswalter v. Palomares

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief