Wunderlin v. Cadogan
50 Cal. 613
Opinion
In concluding that the title of the plaintiff was equitable merely, the court below must have overlooked the fact that Hayes and Caperton had conveyed the premises directly to the plaintiff. At the time that the latter conveyance was made, the legal title was in the grantors; for the instrument previously delivered by them to Clark (which is the pretended deed to Marshall) was void as a conveyance—there being no grantee mentioned therein.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wunderlin v. Cadogan, 50 Cal. 613 (Cal. 1875).
50 Cal. 613 (Wunderlin v. Cadogan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jay v. Dollarhide
3 Cal. App. 3d 1001 (California Court of Appeal, 1970)
Green v. MacAdam
346 P.2d 474 (California Court of Appeal, 1959)
Trout v. Taylor
32 P.2d 968 (California Supreme Court, 1934)
Tasker v. Nieto
291 P. 688 (California Court of Appeal, 1930)
Tannahill v. Greening
259 P. 1017 (California Court of Appeal, 1927)
Jones v. Coulter
243 P. 487 (California Court of Appeal, 1925)
Lund v. Thackery
99 N.W. 856 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1904)
Lockwood v. Bassett
14 N.W. 492 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1883)