Morrow v. Graves

19 P. 489, 77 Cal. 218, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 668
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 23, 1888
DocketNo. 11455
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 19 P. 489 (Morrow v. Graves) 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
Morrow v. Graves, 19 P. 489, 77 Cal. 218, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 668 (Cal. 1888).

Opinion

Havre, C.

Action to set aside certain deeds as in fraud of plaintiff’s rights as a judgment creditor. The debtor, one Tyrrell, who was the owner of the property, conveyed it to the defendant Graves by a deed which was made before the commencement of the plaintiff’s attachment suit against Tyrrell, but not recorded until afterwards. After the recording of the deed, Graves, for valuable consideration, conveyed to the defendants Anspacher and Wynn. Judgment passed for the defendants, and the plaintiff appeals. The court below found that the deed to Graves was for valuable consideration, and not for the purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding the creditors of Tyrrell; and we cannot say upon the record that this finding is not sustained by the evidence. The fact that this deed was not recorded until after the plaintiff’s attachment proceedings against Tyrrell is immaterial. (Plant v. Smythe, 45 Cal. 161; Hoag v. Howard, 55 Cal. 564.) But if it were otherwise,—if the deed to Graves be assumed to have been in fraud of the rights of creditors,—the objection would not reach the deed to Anspacher and Wynn. At the time of this deed the title stood of record in the name of Graves. They purchased, [220]*220from him for valuable consideration, and are not shown to have had any notice of the alleged fraudulent character of the deed to Graves. Knowledge of the existing attachment lien in the case of R. F. Morrow against D. M. Tyrrell is quite a different thing; for the title did not then stand in the name of Tyrrell. We therefore advise that the judgment and order denying a new trial be affirmed.

Belcher, C. C., and Foote, C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order denying a new trial are affirmed.

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

Related

Strutt v. Ontario Savings & Loan Ass'n
11 Cal. App. 3d 547 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Marlenee v. Brown
134 P.2d 770 (California Supreme Court, 1943)
Overton v. Schmitt
59 P.2d 1017 (California Supreme Court, 1936)
Johnson v. McDonald
49 P.2d 1017 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1935)
Finnie v. Smith
257 P. 866 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Arakelian v. Sears
200 P. 757 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Bank of South San Francisco v. Pike
200 P. 752 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Brooks v. Tucker
1921 OK 255 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1921)
Commercial National Bank v. Roberts
194 P. 751 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Fly v. Cline
193 P. 615 (California Court of Appeal, 1920)
Postlethwaite v. Minor
142 P. 55 (California Supreme Court, 1914)
Denike v. Santa Clara Valley Agricultural Society
98 P. 687 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
19 P. 489, 77 Cal. 218, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morrow-v-graves-cal-1888.