Gaven v. Hagen

8 Citing cases

  1. Central P. R. Co. v. Mudd

    59 Cal. 585 (Cal. 1881)   Cited 11 times
    In C. P. R. R. Co. v. Mudd, 59 Cal. 585, there was a distinct stipulation that on failure of the vendee to pay the vendor should have a right to re-enter.

    . (U.S.) 274, 282; Burnett v. Caldwell , 9 id. 290; Wright v. Moore, 21 Wend. 229; Marlin v. Willink, 7 Serg. & R. 297; Tyler on Ejectment, 565, 707 (as to Illinois); Baker v. Gittings, 16 Ohio, 485; Showers v. Emery, id. 294; Kelly v. Hendricks , 57 Ala. 193; Edgerton v. Peckham, 11 Paige's Ch. 353; Keller v. Lewis , 53 Cal. 112; Gaven v. Hagen , 15 id. 208; Long v. Neville , 29 id. 131; Ellis v. Jeans , 7 id. 415; Hansbrough v. Peck, 5 Wall. 506.)          A vendee in possession under an executory contract can not avail himself of his equitabletitle as a defense to the legal title, unless he is in a position to demand a conveyance of the legal title to him; or unless his possession is not dependent on the performance of the conditions of the contract. (Love v. Watkins , 40 Cal. 564; Willis v. Wozencraft , 22 id. 607; Spencer v. Tobey, 22 Barb. 260; Gaven v. Hagen , 15 Cal. 210.)           Joseph D. Redding, for Appellant.

  2. Crane v. Ferrier Brock Development Co.

    164 Cal. 676 (Cal. 1913)   Cited 8 times

    In the absence of anything in the contract from which it can be inferred or implied that he is to have possession, he has no right thereto. (Gaven v. Hagen, 15 Cal. 211; Stratton v. California Land Co., 86 Cal. 364, [24 P. 1065]; Gates v. McLean, 70 Cal. 49, [11 P. 489]; 39 Cyc. 1620. There is nothing in the contract or in the allegations of the complaint to indicate that the plaintiff ever had possession, or that the contract gave him the right thereto, or that he had taken possession, or that he now has possession.

  3. Royal v. Dennison

    109 Cal. 558 (Cal. 1895)   Cited 6 times

    This, however, Royal contends he was not bound to accept, because Lucius Dennison was a stranger to the contract, and because he was entitled under the contract to a deed from G. L. Dennison direct. As against this proposition appellant cites the case of Gaven v. Hagen , 15 Cal. 208, in which, he contends, this court made a decision to the contrary effect.          That case, however, does not, in our opinion, clearly decide the proposition for which the appellant is contending.

  4. Stratton v. California Land & Timber Co.

    86 Cal. 353 (Cal. 1890)   Cited 11 times

    There was no stipulation in the contract exhibit A surrendering the possession of the property to the vendee; and unless there is such a stipulation in a contract like the one mentioned, it may be considered as settled in this state that the vendor retains the possession until the legal title passes to his vendee. (Gaven v. Hagen , 15 Cal. 208; Gates v. McLean , 70 Cal. 49.) Hence it was necessary for Craig to show, as such receiver, a performance of or offer to perform the contract by the vendee or his assigns or himself for the benefit of the parties whom he represented as receiver, so that the court might have compelled the plaintiff to convey the legal title to the proper party, which would have carried the right of possession.          As no such state of facts was shown to exist, we think he failed to establish any interest in the premises.

  5. Gates v. McLean

    70 Cal. 42 (Cal. 1886)   Cited 31 times
    In Gates v. McLean (1886) 70 Cal. 42, 46, 11 P. 489, we explained: "It has been repeatedly held, that even when the [trial] court has omitted to find upon a material issue, a new trial may be denied if on the evidence the finding must have been adverse to the party asking the new trial.

    " And in that case it was held that where the contract does not provide for the purchaser entering into possession, no license to enter is to be implied. In Gaven v. Hagen , 15 Cal. 211, the Supreme Court of this state said that Spencer v. Tobey, supra, correctly lays down the general proposition as to implied license (to enter) arising from a mere contract of purchase.          In Bohall v. Diller , 41 Cal. 533, the vendor sought to recover all the money due under the contract, and the possession of the land.

  6. Felger v. Coward

    35 Cal. 650 (Cal. 1868)   Cited 3 times

    From plaintiff's evidence it appears conclusively that the contract by Coward to deed or convey to Felger one undivided eighth of the mine was absolutely silent as to any right of Felger, under it, to the possession of the mine. And it is now well settled by the authorities that a simple contract to deed or convey, at a future time or otherwise, gives the vendee no right whatever to enter into the possession or intermeddle with it in any way. (Spencer v. Tobey, 22 Barb. S.C. 268; Gaven v. Hagen, 15 Cal. 211; Blum v. Robertson, 24 Cal. 141; Talbot v. Chamberlin, 3 Paige, 222.)          If a parol permission was given, it was not part of the contract, which the statute requires to be in writing.

  7. Jiral v. Day

    95 Cal.App.2d 214 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)   Cited 3 times

    [3] In support of appellant's final contention it is argued that although the informal agreement of December 12th did not refer to a right of possession in the defendant nevertheless plaintiff knew that the only reason for the agreement was the immediate acquisition of a home for the defendant's children; that possession was the only element which gave value to the agreement and that without it the agreement would never have been consummated. Although counsel for appellant states that there are no California cases in point it would appear that since the early cases of Tewksbury v. Laffan (1850), 1 Cal. 129, and Gaven v. Hagen (1860), 15 Cal. 208, the mere existence of an executory contract for the sale of real property does not give rise to an "implication of a license to enter." ( 15 Cal. 212.)

  8. Flint v. Conner

    53 Cal.App. 279 (Cal. Ct. App. 1921)   Cited 8 times

    " ( Hicks v. Lovell, 64 Cal. 18, [49 Am. Rep. 679, 27 P. 942]. See, also Gaven v. Hagen, 15 Cal. 208; Stratton v. California Land etc. Co., 86 Cal. 364, [24 P. 1065]; Gates v. McLean, 70 Cal. 49, [11 P. 489]; Crane v. Ferrier etc. Co., 164 Cal. 678; [ 130 P. 429]; Gervaise v. Brookins, 156 Cal. 106, 107, [ 103 P. 329]; Burnett v. Caldwell, 9 Wall. (U.S.) 290, [19 L.Ed. 712, see, also, Rose's U.S. Notes].)