Cahoon

Cahoon v. Robinson

Good Law
1856 Cal. LEXIS 102·6 Cal. 225
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1856California460 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Murray, J.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

The only question involved in this case is, whether a vendor of real estate has a lien upon the same in the hands of an administrator, for the unpaid purchase money.

In the cases of Salmon v. Hoffman et al., and Truebody v. Jacobson, 2 Cal. Rep., the principle that the vendor has any equitable lien on the land sold for the purchase money, unless he has taken security for its payment, even if he has executed a conveyance, was firmly established, and it is too late now to question the authority of those decisions. In this connection, it is only necessary to remark, that it has been universally held, that the recital of payment in a deed is not conclusive, and that receiving the notes of the vendee, is not a merger of security or waiver of the lien. Having determined in favor of a lien as against the vendee, and that the same is not repugnant to the letter or spirit of our recording Act, what is there to alter the rule in the case of an administrator, who is the mere legal representative of the deceased, and who stands charged with the same equities and liabilities, with regard to the property, as he himself did in his lifetime ? Why, if this claim…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.