Barney v. Pforr
Before: Searls
Synopsis
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, denying a new trial. J. M. Seawell, Judge.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Searls, C. This is an action of ejectment to recover possession of a parcel of land in the southerly part of the city and county of San Francisco.
Defendant denied the title of plaintiffs, and pleaded the bar of the statute of limitations as provided by sections 318 and 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
At the trial a nonsuit was granted on motion of defendant, and plaintiffs appeal from an order of the court denying their motion for a new trialx
The question involved turns upon the propriety of a ruling of the court excluding a deed of conveyance of the property in question by the Islais and Salinas Water Company (a corporation) to Henry B. Potter and Abel Wade, dated January 2, 1861.
Plaintiffs claimed under said Potter and Wade. A like deed from the same grantor to Charles Mayne was the subject of a like ruling, but, as the deed first indi[58]cated presents the question fully, further mention of the Mayne deed is unnecessary.
The deed to Potter and Wade describes the grantor as follows: “The Islais and Salinas Water Company, a corporation duly formed under the laws of the state of California, having its principal place of business in the city and county of San Francisco, of the first part,” etc.
The deed continues in the usual form, and, after the habendum clause, closes as follows:
“ In witness whereof, the said party of the first part hath caused these presents to be signed with its corporate name by Francis L. A. Pioche, Henry A. Cobb, and Cornelius De Boom, the trustees of said corporation, and to be sealed by said trustees with their respective private seals (said corporation having no common seal), at the city and county of San Francisco, the day and year first above written.”
[Signed] “ The Islais and Salinas Water Company,
By “ F. L. A. Pioche, [Seal] “ H. A. Cobb, [Seal] “ C. De Boom, [Seal]
Proof was made that the corporation grantor had three trustees, but there was no proof that the parties signing the deed were such trustees, nor was there any authority shown from the corporation to anyone to make the sale or to convey the land; nor was there any resolution ratifying such conveyance.
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)