Carter v. Hopkins (1889) · DecisionDepot

Carter v. Hopkins

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Apr 29, 1889 No. No. 12967Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the nonsuit because the plaintiff failed to prove any material allegations of the complaint, and held that the resulting trust was extinguished by the conveyance of land in San Bernardino.

Issues

Whether the grounds for nonsuit were stated with sufficient precision.
Whether the resulting trust was extinguished by the conveyance of land in San Bernardino.
Whether the statute of frauds requires a written conveyance of an equitable interest in the San Francisco lot.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We cannot say that the nonsuit was erroneously granted, for the reason that the grounds on which it was asked were not stated with the precision and definiteness that the law required.”

“the court is of opinion that this trust was extinguished by the conveyance by Hopkins to Bouldin”

Synopsis

Nonsuit—Statement of Grounds of Motion, — A statement of the grounds of a motion for a nonsuit, that the plaintiff had failed to prove a single allegation of his complaint, is sufficiently precise and definite to sustain an order granting a nonsuit. Such statement would be understood to signify that plaintiff had not proved a single material allegation of the complaint.

Resulting Trust—Extinguishment — Statute of Frauds.—A resulting trust is. extinguished by the conveyance by the trustee to the beneficiary of other lands upon purchase of his equitable estate; and the statute of frauds does not in such case require a conveyance by the beneficiary of his equitable interest to the holder of the legal title.

The Court. The grounds on which the nonsuit was asked were sufficiently stated. They are equivalent to the statement that the plaintiff had failed to prove a single allegation of his complaint. The plaintiff’s attorney, no doubt, understood what was meant by the statement made by the attorney for the defendants, viz., that the plaintiff had not proved a single material allegation of the complaint. We cannot say that the nonsuit was erroneously granted, for the reason that the grounds on which it was asked were not stated with the precision and definiteness that the law required.

Conceding that a resulting trust was established as to the lot in the city and county of San Francisco, the court is of opinion that this trust was extinguished by the conveyance by Hopkins to Bouldin of the land in the county of San Bernardino, and that the statute of frauds does not require a conveyance by Bouldin to Hopkins of his equitable interest in the San Francisco lot.

Judgment affirmed.

Carter v. Hopkins

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief