Mesick

Mesick v. Sunderland

Good Law
1856 Cal. LEXIS 135·6 Cal. 297
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1856California2,859 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Murray, J.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

This was an action of ejectment in the Court below. The plaintiff and defendant both deraign title from a Mexican grant to John A. Sutter, and from him to John A. Sutter, Jr. The deed under which the defendant claims is as follows :

Here follows the particular description of the several lots and tracts of land, to which this opinion is not intended particularly to apply.

It is stipulated by the parties, for the purpose of this action, that the sum of §125,000, the amount of the purchase money, was paid.

The points made by the appellants are : First, that the deed is void, for want of a description of the premises. Second, that the payment of the purchase money, according to the terms of the deed, is a condition precedent to vesting the title, and that a performance of such conditions cannot be presumed; that the act precedent to the vesting of the title must be shown, before the deed will be effectual to bar or protect the claimant under it, as against the grantor’s title. And third, that a subsequent purchaser would not be affected by the deed, though the same were duly acknowledged and recorded.

The first question which naturally suggests…

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.