Putnam v. Dungan
Before: Harrison
Synopsis
Release oí Interest in Land — Failure of Title — Recovery of Money Paid. — One who pays money to another for a release of his interest in certain land, upon the condition that if it be ascertained that he did not have any interest in the land the money is to he repaid, may maintain an action for the recovery of the money, if it is satisfactorily established that he had no interest in the land sold.
Id.—Appeal — Conflicting Evidence — Compromise.—Where the evidence is substantially conflicting as to whether he had any interest in the land sold, and as to whether the payment was made under such agreement or was paid as a compromise and settlement of differences, a verdict and judgment for the recovery of the money will not he disturbed.
Id.—Person Charged with Knowledge of his Own Title.—One who was personally connected with all the acts and transactions culminating in the purchase of land will he held, as a matter of law, upon a resale thereof, to have known whether he had any interest in the land or not.
Id.—Voluntary Payment — Knowledge of Plaintiff.—The fact that the plaintiff had learned the facts connected with the purchase before the payment was made would not make the payment voluntary, or preclude him f om recovering it back under such agreement in case the seller had no interest in the purchase.
Id.—Interest in Purchase — Evidence — Joint Note.—The fact that several parties unite in a note to a hank for the money with which to purchase land is not conclusive in determining their relations, and does not of itself create a joint interest in the purchase in favor of all parties to the note.
Harrison, J. — The real question involved in this action is, whether the one thousand dollars which the plaintiff alleges was paid by him to the defendant, and for the recovery of which the action was brought, was paid as a compromise and in settlement of differences existing between him and the defendant, or whether it was paid upon the representation and claim by the defendant that he had an interest in the purchase of certain lands in Oregon, and upon his agreement that he [233]would repay it if it should be subsequently ascertained that he did not have any interest therein. Underlying this question, however, is the question whether the defendant did in reality have any such interest, and whether, if he did not, he knew that he had no such interest; for if he knew that he had no interest in the land, his representation to the plaintiff that he had was false, and if made with a view of inducing the plaintiff to pay to him one thousand dollars therefor, was fraudulent. Inasmuch, moreover, as the defendant himself had been personally connected with all the acts and transactions culminating in the purchase of the land, he must be held, as a matter of law, to have known whether he had any interest in the purchase or not. Hence the first question to be determined upon the trial was, whether the defendant did in fact have any interest in the purchase of the land referred to.
In pursuance of a previous plan formed on behalf of the plaintiff, one Walker, and one Smith, with the defendant and his brother, the defendant and Walker had gone to the state of Oregon from the county of Humboldt, where they all resided, for the purpose of making purchase of lands, if any could be found which would be satisfactory to them. Previous to their departure, a note for five thousand dollars had been given to the Humboldt County Bank by four of the parties, for which the bank had given five one-thousand-dollar drafts on the Bank of California, of which two were made payable to the order of Walker, and three to the order of the defendant. After reaching Oregon, a purchase was made of the Long ranch, and an agreement for its conveyance executed between the owner and Walker, the defendant signing his name as a witness to the agreement. After making this purchase the defendant and Walker looked at some other tracts of land, but finding none which suited them, returned to Humboldt County. On their route back a disagreement arose between Walker and [234]
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)