Jackson v. Hyde

McFarland, J. The purpose of this action is to have it decreed that plaintiff is the equitable owner of a certain described eighty-acre tract of land; that defendant holds the legal title thereto in trust for plaintiff; and that defendant convey the same to plaintiff. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

The material facts in the case are these: On September 2, 1867, one Gabriel Moore purchased said tract of land from the state, paying twenty per cent of the pur[464]chase-money and one year’s interest, and received a certificate of purchase therefor. He occupied and held possession of the land under said certificate from its date until his death, which occurred in May, 1880, having paid most of the accruing interest. He died intestate, and his only heirs were his widow, Mary Moore, and his son, Ephraim Moore, who were appointed administratrix and administrator, and occupied said land until they conveyed it as hereinafter stated. By a final distribution of the estate of said Gabriel Moore, made May 21, 1881, said land was distributed to said Mary and Ephraim. On September 12,1885, said Mary conveyed said land to ■ said Ephraim by a deed duly executed and recorded on the same day. On July 20,1887, said Ephraim, by deed recorded that day, conveyed said land to John H. Byrd, and on July 26, 1887, said Byrd, by deed recorded that day, conveyed said land to plaintiff herein. These conveyances were made for valuable considerations, and plaintiff and his grantors have been continuously in undisturbed possession of said land.

The said certificate of purchase seems to have remained in the possession of said Mary and Ephraim, and after-wards,— the said Mary on May 2, 1889, and the said Ephraim on May 7, 1889, — by written instruments attached to said certificate, they assigned the same, for the expressed consideration of one dollar, to the defendant, Hyde, and delivered to him the certificate. Thereupon the said defendant presented said certificate to the register of the state land-office, together with said assignments and proof of the said distribution to said Mary and Ephraim, and upon payment of the balance due the state thereon, procured a patent for said land to be issued to himself. The register was ignorant of said conveyances of said land as aforesaid, but the defendant had full knowledge thereof.

We think that the judgment of the court below was clearly right. The case cannot be distinguished, on the point involved, from Henderson v. Grammar, 66 Cal. 332. The only difference is, that in the Henderson case the