Brooks

Brooks v. Tichner

Good Law
1 Cal. Unrep. 104
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 29, 1863No. 3899California3,313 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Rhodes, J.

This is an action of ejectment. The plaintiff had judgment and the defendant appealed to the late supreme court, who reversed the judgment and ordered judgment on the findings for the defendants, and afterward this court granted a rehearing. It will be necessary to repeat a few of the facts found by the court below, to give a correct understanding of our views of the law applicable to the case.

On the eighteenth day of September, 1852, Lowell and wife, who resided upon and were in possession of a tract of which the premises in controversy form a part, mortgaged the same to Wingate, to secure the payment of fifteen hundred dollars and the interest. Lowell and wife, in 1853, conveyed the premises to Carter, who in the same year conveyed the un *106 divided half to Lawrence, and that half by mesne conveyance vested in the plaintiff, the deed to him being dated May 30, 1855. Carter conveyed the remaining half to the plaintiff, by deed dated September 11, 1855. All the deeds except the two to the plaintiff were duly recorded, and those two were recorded. January 29, 1859.

In 1856 "Wingate commenced' an action to foreclose his mortgage against the mortgagors (Lowell and wife), the two…

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.