Lucas v. Richardson

Searls, C. — This is an action of ejectment by plaintiff as the heir and devisee of George 0. Lucas to recover 160 acres of land situate in the county of Stanislaus.

. Defendant denies plaintiff’s title, avers title in himself, interposes the plea of the statute of limitations, and as a further and equitable defense, sets out in apt language a verbal contract made in 1870 between himself and plaintiff’s predecessor, George 0. Lucas, by the terms of which defendant agreed to purchase upon certain terms —since that date fully complied with by him — the demanded premises.

The cause was tried by the court, and defendant had judgment.

The findings were against defendant upon the plea of the statute of limitations.

The only additional facts necessary to be stated are, that the legal title to the locus in quo vested in plaintiff as the heir and devisee of George C. Lucas, and that under his contract of sale with said Lucas, defendant acquired an equitable title, which, for this decision, we shall assume was, if it still remains in him, or may be set up in this action, sufficient to bar plaintiff’s right of recovery.

At the trial plaintiff offered to prove that subsequent to the acquisition by defendant of the equitable title, he instituted proceedings in bankruptcy, in the District Court of the United States for the district of California, in which proceedings an assignment in due form and sufficient in law to pass all the estate of said defendant to A. W. Moulton, the assignee therein named, was duly executed. Also a final discharge in bankruptcy of said defendant in said cause, duly made and entered therein.

The papers in bankruptcy were and each of them was duly certified and authenticated so as to entitle them to be admitted in evidence, if they were material and proper testimony in the cause.

To the introduction of this documentary evidence, coun[620]sel for defendant objected, upon the ground “that it is irrelevant and immaterial.”

The objection was sustained by the court.

We find no exception to this ruling, and are not therefore called upon to consider the question presented.

The evidence was sufficient to warrant the findings of the court, and we are of opinion they cover all the material issues, and show such an equitable title in the defendant, under an executed verbal contract for the purchase of the premises, accompanied by possession, as warranted the judgment in his favor.