Frisbie

Frisbie v. Moore

Good Law
51 Cal. 516
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1876No. 5146California964 words

Opinion

dissent Opinion

Wallace, J.

dissenting:

In that case the condition was that the grantor “shall obtain the title of the United States;” in this case, the condition is that there shall be “final confirmation by the constituted authorities of the United States,” etc. Now, while these conditions differ in point of mere phraseology, they are in substance one and the same. The purchaser in each case contracted for the title of the United States, and in each case obtained it. In the present case, had the Vallejo title been finally confirmed by the Court, the stipulated title would have been obtained through the decree of confirmation. This would be so, because the Supreme Court of the United States is one of “the constituted authorities of the government of the United States,” through whose favorable action the title of the United States might have befen obtained within the conceded terms of the condition. But the Congress of the United States is also one of the “constituted authorities,” through whose favorable action the title of the United States might be, as it was in point of fact, obtained. The equity upon which the case of Snow v. Ferrea was determined here was founded upon the circumstance that the…

lead Opinion

It appears from the agreed statement of facts that in the year 1861, the plaintiff, being a purchaser from Vallejo (the grantee of the Mexican Government), of a parcel of land included in the Suscol rancho, sold it to the female defendant, then an unmarried woman, and conveyed it to her by a deed containing no covenant of warranty; that a portion of the purchase money was paid at the date of the deed, and the vendee then executed to the plaintiff her obligation in writing, whereby she undertook to pay him the further sum of $1,000 with interest, “ on the final confirmation by the constituted authorities of the Government of the United States of America, of the rancho of Suscol, in the State of California;” and at the same time executed a mortgage to the plaintiff on the premises conveyed, to secure the performance of the obligation. The action is to enforce payment of the $1,000, with interest, and for a foreclosure of the mortgage. It further appears that, at the date of the conveyance and of the obligation and mortgage, the claim of Vallejo for a confirmation of his title to the Suscol rancho was pending and undecided in the Supreme Court of the United States; but was…

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.