Hoffman v. Vallejo

45 Cal. 564
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1873
DocketNo. 3,296
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 45 Cal. 564 (Hoffman v. Vallejo) 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
Hoffman v. Vallejo, 45 Cal. 564 (Cal. 1873).

Opinion

By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:

The complaint sets forth an agreement, as follows:

“ This agreement, made and entered into this fifth day of September, A. D. eighteen hundred and sixty-five, by and between José Jesus Vallejo, of the County of Alameda, State of California, of the first part, and William P. Hoffman, Samuel M. Wilson, and David S. Wilson, the latter two constituting the law firm of Wilson & Wilson, of the City and County of San Francisco, of the second part, witnesseth: Whereas, the said Vallejo has certain rights and claims to [567]*567that certain rancho or tract of land, or a great part thereof, called the ‘Rancho Arroyo de la Alameda,’ situated in the County of Alameda and State of California, and bounded on the south by the Alameda Creek; on the west by the salt marsh lands lying along the Bay of San Francisco; and on the north and east by the ‘Rancho San Lorenzo’ and the top of the mountains, and is more particularly described in the patent thereof from the United States to the said José Jesus Vallejo, the party of the first part, which patent is recorded in the Recorder’s office of the County of Alameda, in Book ‘A’ of Patents, on pages sixty-two to seventy-one, inclusive, to which reference is here made; and whereas, the said party of the first part is desirous of instituting certain proceedings in law and equity for the recovery of said lands, and particularly to set aside a certain sale of the premises, or a greater part thereof, made by the Sheriff of the County of Alameda, on or about the 25th day of August, A. D. 1862, under or purporting to be under a certain judgment or decree of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for the said County of Alameda; and whereas, the said party of the first part has, at even date herewith, given to said Hoffman and to said Wilson, his power of attorney in reference to the matter aforesaid, and has retained said Wilson and his law partner, David S. Wilson, to conduct the business aforesaid in conjunction with said Hoffman; now, in consideration of the premises, the party of the first part does hereby agree to convey by good and sufficient deed or deeds of conveyance, to the said parties of the second part, one undivided half of all his right, title, interest, and estate in said rancho or tract of land, and in each and every part thereof, to be equally divided between the parties of the second part, and the undivided one half of all that may be recovered, obtained or recovered, or any litigation, settlement, or compromise of the matters aforesaid, or any part thereof, such [568]*568deeds to be made or such moneys paid to the parties of the second part on demand, and no settlement or compromise of any of the matter aforesaid shall be made without the consent of the parties of the second part in writing expressed; and upon the recovery of any of said lands, shall embrace the mill called Vallejo Mill,’ either by litigation or compromise, it is understood that, upon any division between the said Hoffman and S. M. and D. S. Wilson, that'the said Vallejo shall have the right of choice of the part on which said mill is located, but the division shall, however, be equal in value between the party of the first part and the parties of the second part; and it is further understood and agreed that it shall be left at the discretion of said S. M. Wilson and D. S. Wilson to determine what proceedings at law or equity shall be commenced or prosecuted, in order to determine the rights of said José Jesus Vallejo. It is further understood that the said José Jesus Vallejo shall receive his proportion of the property which he may recover or obtain by said proceedings free from any and all fees of attorney, or Court costs, or referee’s fees. In witness whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first above written.
“J. J. VALLEJO, [seal.]
“W. P. HOFFMAN, [seal.]
“S. M. WILSON, [seal.]
“D. S. WILSON.” [seal.]

In a few days after the making of the foregoing agreement the defendant, J. J. Vallejo, delivered to Hoffman and Wilson a letter of attorney, as follows:

“Know all men by these presents, that I, José Jesus Vallejo, of the County of Alameda, State of California, have made, constituted, and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute, and appoint William P. Hoffman and Samuel M. Wilson my true and lawful attorneys, for me and [569]*569in my name, place, and stead, to commence, institute, and prosecute for me and in my name; and likewise to defend in law and equity, and in any Courts, any and all suits, actions, or legal proceedings whatever for the recovery of or relating to the rancho or tract of land called the Rancho Arroyo de la Alameda, and each and every part thereof; the said rancho being bounded on the south by Alameda Creek, on the west by the salt marsh lands lying along the Bay of San Francisco, and on the north and east by the Rancho of San Lorenzo and the top of the mountains, and more particularly bounded and described in the patent therefor from the Government of the United States to me, which patent is recorded in the Recorder’s office of the County of Alameda, in Book ‘A’ of Patents, on pages sixty-two to seventy-one, inclusive, or relating to any sales heretofore made by any of my attorneys, of any parts thereof, and also to institute and prosecute any and all suits, actions, and proceedings in law and equity to maintain and establish any and all rights I may have in the premises, or in any part thereof, or in any of the proceeds of any sales thereof, and particularly to institute a suit or suits, actions, or proceedings to set aside a certain sale made by the Sheriff of said County of Alameda on or about the 25th day of August, A. D. 1862, of said lands, or a great part thereof, to Jonas G. Clark, purporting to be made under a certain judgment or decree of the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of California, in and for the County of Alameda, in a certain action in which said Jonas G. Clark was the plaintiff and I, the said Vallejo, and others, were defendants; and I do authorize and empower my said attorneys to make any and all compromises with any and all persons relating to the matter aforesaid, on such terms and conditions as to them may seem meet, giving and vesting in [570]*570them full power and control irrevocable over the matters, and each and all of the matters aforesaid, with full power to make, execute, and deliver in my name, and under my seal or otherwise, any and all deeds of conveyance of and all of said lands aforesaid, or any instrument in writing whatever they may deem needful or expedient in the premises, giving and granting unto my said attorneys full power and authority to do and perform every act and thing whatever requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully, to all intents and purposes, as I might or could do if personally present, with full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said attorneys, or their substitutes, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
“ In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, the twenty-ninth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five.
“J. J. VALLEJO.” [seal.]

It is alleged in the complaint that in August, 1860, the defendant, J. J.

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

Related

Isrin v. Superior Court
403 P.2d 728 (California Supreme Court, 1965)
Estate of Raphael
230 P.2d 436 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
Calvert v. Stoner
199 P.2d 297 (California Supreme Court, 1948)
Allen v. Commissioner
5 T.C. 1232 (U.S. Tax Court, 1945)
Kramer v. Commissioner
46 B.T.A. 951 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1942)
Haupt v. Charlie's Kosher Market
112 P.2d 627 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Harvey v. Ballagh
101 P.2d 147 (California Court of Appeal, 1940)
Butler v. Young
2 S.E.2d 250 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1939)
Gomez v. Superior Court
24 P.2d 856 (California Court of Appeal, 1933)
Kelly v. Smith
268 P. 1057 (California Supreme Court, 1928)
Tracy v. Ringole
262 P. 73 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Casket Co. v. . Wheeler
109 S.E. 378 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
High Point Casket Co. v. Wheeler
182 N.C. 459 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1921)
Levy v. Ryland
32 Nev. 460 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1910)
Potter v. Ajax Mining Co.
61 P. 999 (Utah Supreme Court, 1900)
Bergen v. Frisbie
57 P. 784 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Croco v. Oregon Short Line Railroad
44 L.R.A. 285 (Utah Supreme Court, 1898)
Luco v. De Toro
27 P. 1082 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Ford v. Gregson
7 Mont. 89 (Montana Supreme Court, 1887)
Courtright v. Burnes
13 F. 317 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 Cal. 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-vallejo-cal-1873.