Tiffany v. Hansen

D. Alaska

Tiffany v. Hansen

7 Alaska 384

CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska

DecidedJanuary 15, 1926

DocketNo. 2996

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Alaska 384 (Tiffany v. Hansen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Alaska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tiffany v. Hansen, 7 Alaska 384 (D. Alaska 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

TOMEN, District Judge.

What property was conveyed does not appear, except inferentially. For aught that appears the conveyance was voluntary. The “representation” was not one upon which plaintiff had a right to rely. It was neither material nor “relevant to the deed. It was a mere legal opinion, however false or untrue. Plaintiff was presumed to know the law. It implied, not only that plaintiff was required to sign a paper, before she could get the administrator’s deed and become the “owner in fee,!’ but it also implied that she was not then the owner in fee, which she alleges that she was on the day previous to the “false representations.” A voluntary conveyance has been held to be good as between the parties, though without consideration in fact. We find no grounds alleged which would warrant a cancellation of the deed in question.

The demurrer is therefore sustained.

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

TOMEN, District Judge.

What property was conveyed does not appear, except inferentially. For aught that appears the conveyance was voluntary. The “representation” was not one upon which plaintiff had a right to rely. It was neither material nor “relevant to the deed. It was a mere legal opinion, however false or untrue. Plaintiff was presumed to know the law. It implied, not only that plaintiff was required to sign a paper, before she could get the administrator’s deed and become the “owner in fee,!’ but it also implied that she was not then the owner in fee, which she alleges that she was on the day previous to the “false representations.” A voluntary conveyance has been held to be good as between the parties, though without consideration in fact. We find no grounds alleged which would warrant a cancellation of the deed in question.

The demurrer is therefore sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Alaska 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tiffany-v-hansen-akd-1926.