Grant v. De Lamori

California Supreme Court

Grant v. De Lamori

14 P. 314, 2 Cal. Unrep. 770, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 831

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 30, 1887

DocketNo. 11,712

StatusPublished

This text of 14 P. 314 (Grant v. De Lamori) 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.

Bluebook

Grant v. De Lamori, 14 P. 314, 2 Cal. Unrep. 770, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 831 (Cal. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARPSTEIN, J.

Tested by what we conceive to be now the well-settled rule in this state, the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer to it was properly overruled.

As we construe the deed of Louis Lamori, it conveys all his interest in the land to his wife. The contract with the trustees of the Lick estate is clearly referred to in the deed for the purpose of describing more definitely the premises conveyed, and it makes no difference what its legal effect might be. No one connected with this action claims anything under it. The [774]*774objection to its introduction in evidence was properly overruled. The deed of Louis Lamori to Vejar, of a date subsequent to that made to Mrs. Lamori, was wholly immaterial, and the objection to its introduction in evidence was properly sustained. '

We discover no error in the record. Judgment and order affirmed.

We concur: McFarland, J.; Thornton, J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SHARPSTEIN, J.

Tested by what we conceive to be now the well-settled rule in this state, the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer to it was properly overruled.

As we construe the deed of Louis Lamori, it conveys all his interest in the land to his wife. The contract with the trustees of the Lick estate is clearly referred to in the deed for the purpose of describing more definitely the premises conveyed, and it makes no difference what its legal effect might be. No one connected with this action claims anything under it. The [774]*774objection to its introduction in evidence was properly overruled. The deed of Louis Lamori to Vejar, of a date subsequent to that made to Mrs. Lamori, was wholly immaterial, and the objection to its introduction in evidence was properly sustained. '

We discover no error in the record. Judgment and order affirmed.

We concur: McFarland, J.; Thornton, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 P. 314, 2 Cal. Unrep. 770, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-de-lamori-cal-1887.