Manders v. Wilson

230 F. 536, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 928
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedSeptember 13, 1915
DocketNo. 15852
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 230 F. 536 (Manders v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Manders v. Wilson, 230 F. 536, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 928 (N.D. Cal. 1915).

Opinion

DOOLING, District Judge.

[1, 2] This is an action by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside a deed executed and delivered by the- bankrupt to the’defendants on September 27, 1911, but not recorded until October 23, 1914. There is no fraud alleged in connection with the original execution and delivery of the deed, but it is sought to set it aside upon an allegation that it was withheld from record by the defendants in order not to affect the credit of the grantor, and in order to enable him to extend his credit upon the reputed ownership of the property involved. The complaint also avers that a certain corporation did extend credit to the grantor upon his reputed ownership of' the land in question.

Section 70e of the Bankruptcy Act provides that “a trustee may avoid any transfer by the bankrupt of his property which any creditor of such bankrupt might haye avoided,” etc. But of course this means “which any creditor might have avoided” under the laws, of the state where the transaction occurred. Whatever may be the rule in other states, or at common law, no law, nor any decision, has been called to my attention which would permit the corporation extending credit to the grantor to avoid a deed not otherwise fraudulent in this state, [537]*537because of failure to record it. Indeed, it was early held here that failure to record a transfer of real property renders such transfer void only as against subsequent purchasers or incumbrancers in good faith and for value. Section 1214, Civil Code; In re Prow, 4 Cal. 173; Pixlcy v. Pluggins, 15 Cal. 127. Nor does there appear in the complaint the necessary elements of an estoppel, such as would prevent the defendants from asserting title.

The demurrer to the complaint is therefore sustained.

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

Related

In re Southern Metal Products Corp.
26 F. Supp. 666 (N.D. Alabama, 1939)
Ignatius v. Farmers' State Bank of Havre
272 F. 33 (Ninth Circuit, 1921)
Neuberger v. Felis
82 So. 172 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1919)
Riggs v. Price
210 S.W. 420 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1919)
Baldwin v. Kingston
247 F. 163 (D. New Jersey, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
230 F. 536, 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manders-v-wilson-cand-1915.