Reynolds

Reynolds v. Borel

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 1063·86 Cal. 538·25 P. 67
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 29, 1890No. 12616California937 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This action was brought to recover a deposit of money made by the plaintiff, Reynolds, to bind his purchase of land from the defendant, Borel. A part of the contract was, that the plaintiff—the purchaser — should be allowed twenty days from the date of the contract within which to search the title to the property, and if the title was found to be “ imperfect, and cannot be made good, said deposit will be returned.”

The plaintiff submitted a proper abstract of title to *539 the land to his attorney, who, within the specified time, pronounced the title imperfect, and objected to it on these grounds: —

“ On the fourth day of June, 1880, Eugene Casserly was the owner of the block of land including said land, and on said day conveyed the same to one R. Emmett Doyle in trust for the separate use and benefit of his wife, Theresa Casserly, in consideration of the love and affection he, Casserly, bore to his said wife, and to be conveyed to her in fee-simple as her separate property, by said trustee, whenever thereunto requested by her; and on the fifth day of June, 1880, the said R. Emmett Doyle did convey said block of real property to the said Theresa Casserly by grant, bargain, and…

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.