Sullivan v. Davis

4 Cal. 291
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 291 (Sullivan v. Davis) 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
Sullivan v. Davis, 4 Cal. 291 (Cal. 1854).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Hevdeneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. J. Wells concurred.

1. The> power of attorney from Cheever to Cheever is in very general terms, “confirming all sales, leases and contracts of every description.” I can see no reason why it does not confer the power to sell land. If language is the index of intention, in this case it cannot be misunderstood.

2. The deed to the plaintiff, as to its legal effect, must be construed most strongly against the grantor. It would, therefore, operate as an ordinary quit claim, by which all the right and title of the grantor is conveyed, and it is suffi[293]*293cient to enable the grantee to maintain ejectment, if the grantor could have done so.

3. Under our Practice Act, it is competent for the plaintiff to recover real property with damages for withholding it, and the rents and profits, all in the same action, and as one cause of action. The Act does not intend merely to give the power of uniting these as different causes in one action, but treating the recovery of real estate, and the rents and profits or damages, as one cause of action, it allows many such causes to be united,

4. The claim of title by the defendant, by virtue of a Sheriff’s deed, is insufficient, without showing the judgment which authorized the sale. By the most accepted authorities, the judgment is a muniment of title, and for sound reasons it is the safest rule.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC
California Supreme Court, 2024
City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court
914 P.2d 160 (California Supreme Court, 1996)
Peacock v. Bradshaw
293 P. 982 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1930)
Root v. Conlin
223 P. 1023 (California Court of Appeal, 1924)
Rodman v. Davis
1912 OK 649 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1912)
Alden v. Mayfield
127 P. 45 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Johnson v. Visher
31 P. 106 (California Supreme Court, 1892)
Rego v. Pelt
3 P. 867 (California Supreme Court, 1884)
Porter v. Wells
6 Kan. 448 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1870)
Lawrence v. Ballou
37 Cal. 518 (California Supreme Court, 1869)
Bolan v. Bolan
4 Nev. 150 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1868)
People v. Doe
31 Cal. 220 (California Supreme Court, 1866)
Field v. Columbet
9 F. Cas. 12 (N.D. California, 1864)
Downer v. Smith
24 Cal. 114 (California Supreme Court, 1864)
Carpentier v. Williamson
25 Cal. 154 (California Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Cal. 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-davis-cal-1854.