Cox v. Hayes
This text of 7 P. 761 (Cox v. Hayes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The only difference between the case as now presented and as presented on the former appeal (64 Cal. 32, 49 Am. Rep. 684, 7 Pac. 785), is that on the last trial the plaintiff was permitted against the objection and exception of the defendant, to put in evidence a deed from Hudson, the common grantor to the defendant of “the northeast quarter of section 16, Tp. 17 N., R. 3 E., excepting therefrom a certain strip of said quarter section, sold by F. R. and A. O. Larkin to A. W. Campbell, and also the easterly one hundred acres of said quarter section, sold by W. K. Hudson to A. Fraser and Thomas Cox.”
It was held on the former appeal that the deed from Hudson to Fraser and Cox conveyed only seventy-seven and seventy-one hundredths acres, which excluded the premises in controversy. We know of no principle upon which the former conveyance to the plaintiff can be held enlarged by the subsequent conveyance to the defendant. The circumstance that the deed to the defendant may not have conveyed to him the property in dispute does not aid the plaintiff in this action of ejectment, where the plaintiff must recover on the strength of his own title. Judgment affirmed.
We concur: McKinstry, J.; McKee, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
7 P. 761, 2 Cal. Unrep. 520, 1885 Cal. LEXIS 833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-hayes-cal-1885.