Garber v. Gianella

California Supreme Court Jun 9, 1893 No. 14736Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an unrecorded lease is void against a subsequent purchaser without notice, and that the defendant is estopped from claiming an interest in the rents because he failed to disclose his interest during the property transfer.

Issues

Whether an unrecorded lease is valid against a subsequent purchaser of the land without notice.
Whether the record of a sublease provides constructive notice of the lessor's underlying interest in the land.
Whether the defendant is estopped from claiming rents when he failed to disclose his interest during the sale of the property.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record of the lease from the defendant to Boulware was net constructive notice of the lease to the defendant, or that he had any interest in the land.”

“It was then incumbent upon the defendant, if he had intended to claim an interest in the land by virtue of the "lease to Boulware, to notify the plaintiff thereof, and his failure to do so estops him from now claiming that the deed did not transfer”

Synopsis

Conversion op Wheat Crop—Rights of Grantee op Land—Unrecorded Lease.—In an action for the conversion of wheat, where the plaintiff claimed title thereto by virtue of his ownership of the land, subject to a lease to a third party, and the defendant claimed the wheat by virtue of a lease executed by him to such third party prior to the acquisition of the land by the plaintiff,' it appearing that the plaintiffs grantor had theretofore 'leased the premises to the defendant by an unrecorded lease, and that he in turn had leased them to such third party for an interest in the crops, but that the plaintiff knew nothing of the lease tId. — Effect op Conveyance op Land—Right to Rents and Profits—Limitations.—A conveyance of land passes title to its rents, issues, and profits, subject only to such limitations as are contained in the instrument of transfer, or of which the grantee has actual or constructive notice.

Id.—Record op Lease Required by Recording Act.—A lease of land is a “conveyance” thereof within the meaning of section 1215 of the Civil Code, requiring a record of all conveyances of land, and the interest thereby created in the lessee, though limited to a right to receive the products of the land, is equally as void against a subsequent purchaser of the land, with no notice of the lease by reason of the failure to have it recorded, as if it were an unrecorded conveyance in fee.

Id.—Effect op Record op Lease prom Lessee having Unrecorded Lease— Constructive Notice__No constructive notice is given of the rights of a lessee under an unrecorded lease by reason of the record of a lease from him to a second lessee, and a grantee of the original lessor is not affected with constructive notice of the rights of such first lessee, although her deed is expressly subject to the second lease, no lessor being named in the deed.

Id__Object op Recording Act—Rights of Strangers to Title—Notice__ The provisions of recording acts are for the protection of subesquent purchasers and encumbrancers from the common grantor, and do not affect the rights of strangers to the claim of title. Records are only constructive notice of a title of which they enable a party to obtain actual knowledge by means of a search.

Id.—Actual Notice—Burden op Proof.—A lessee under an unrecorded lease who has leased to a second lessee, and claims an interest in the crops under such lease, has the burden of proving actual notice of his rights to a grantee of his lessor, who takes merely subject to the second lease, without being informed as to the name of the lessor of such lease.

Nonsuit—Allowance op Additional Proof after Denial op Motion—Discretion. —It is within the discretion of the trial court to allow a plaintiff, after the denial of a motion for a nonsuit, to supplement his case by additional proof.

Harrison, J. The plaintiff recovered a judgment in this action against the defendant for the conversion of certain wheat. The plaintiff claimed title to the wheat by virtue of his ownership of the land, and the defendant by virtue of a lease executed between him and one Boulware prior to the acquisition of the land by the plaintiff. The land is situated in Yuba County, and was originally owned by Lorenzo Gianella, the father of the defendant, and was conveyed to the plaintiff by á deed of conveyance bearing date April 12, 1888, and recorded two days thereafter. The deed was an ordinary grant, bargain, and sale deed of the land in question, "together with the rents, issues, and profits thereof,” and contained the following covenant: “And the said party of the first part and his heirs, the said premises in quiet and peaceful possession of the said party of the second part, and his heirs and assigns, against the said party of the first part and his heirs, and against all and every person and persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same, shall and will warrant, and by these presents forever defend, subject however to a lease to Daniel Boulware, which said lease expires November 1,1889.” The defendant testified that his father had given him a lease of a tract of land, including that conveyed to the plaintiff, upon a money rent, for the term of five years, expiring November 1, 1889, and by virtue thereof on the sixth day of September, 1886, he had leased the same to Boulware for the term of three years from November 1, 1886, by the terms of which Boulware was to pay him a yearly rent or sum of one third of the crops in the stack at the machine. The lease from Lorenzo Gianella to the defendant was not acknowledged or recorded, and the lease from the defendant to Boulware was recorded at the request of the defendant April 3, 1888. The wheat which the defendant is charged [529]with having converted is that which was delivered by Boulwave to him in accordance with the terms of the lease between them. While the plaintiff was negotiating for the purchase of the land, he was informed that there was a lease to Boulware which did not expire till a year from the ensuing fall;' but he was not informed who was the lessor to Boulware, and testified that he supposed that it was his grantor. Other testimony was given to the effect that at the time of the negotiation it was the understanding between the plaintiff and the brokers who had charge of the sale that the plaintiff was not to disturb Boulware in his possession, and was to receive all the rents and issues of the land.

The conveyance from Lorenzo Gianella to the plaintiff had the effect to transfer to him the entire ownership of the land, including its rents, issues, and profits, subject to only such limitations as were contained in the instrument of transfer, or of which the plaintiff had either actual or constructive notice. As the lease to the defendant from his father was not recorded, there was no constructive notice thereby to the plaintiff @f its existence. The lease was a “conveyance'” of the land within the definition of section 1215 of the Civil Code, and the interest in the Zand that was thereby created in the defendant, though limited to a right to receive the products of the land, was as void as against the plaintiff, by reason of the failure to have it recorded, as if it liad been an unrecorded conveyance in fee. The record of the lease from the defendant to Boulware was net constructive notice of the lease to the defendant, or that he had any interest in the land. The. provisions of recording acts are for the protection of subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers from the common grantor, and do not affect the rights of strangers to the claim of title. (Chicago v. Witt, 75 Ill. 211; Losey v. Simpson, 11 N. J. Eq. 249; Traphagen v. Irwin, 18 Neb. 198; Ely v. Wilcox, 20 Wis. 523; Long v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 227; 2 Pomeroy's Equity Jurisprudence, sec. 658, 701.) Records are- only constructive notice of a title of which they enable a party to obtain actual notice or knowledge by means of a search. As the record did not impart any constructive notice to the plaintiff of the rights of the defendant in the land, it for him to show that the had

Garber v. Gianella

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief