From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wunderlin v. Cadogan

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1875
50 Cal. 613 (Cal. 1875)

Summary

In Wunderlin v. Cadogan, 50 Cal. 613, it is held that a deed without the name of a grantee is void, and, if one to whom it is delivered inserts the name of a grantee the named grantee gets no title.

Summary of this case from Jay v. Dollarhide

Opinion

         Appeal from the District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco.

         Ejectment to recover a tract of land in the city of Oakland. The plaintiff, in his opening statement, said that Hayes and Caperton owned the demanded premises in 1855, and sold it to Samuel J. Clark, who paid a portion of the purchase-money down, and gave his notes for the balance; that the grantors gave Clark a deed, in which the name of the grantee was left blank; that Hayes and Caperton afterwards sued Clark on the notes, but before they recovered judgment, he, without the knowledge of Marshall, inserted the name of Humphrey J. Marshall as grantee in the deed, and had it recorded. That H. and C. recovered judgment against Clark, and had the property sold on execution, and Wunderlin became the purchaser, but before he received a sheriff's deed, Marshall sold the property to defendant Cadogan, who had notice of the facts; that Cadogan had sold portions of it to the other defendants, who also bought with notice; that after the deed from Marshall to Cadogan was recorded, Hayes and Caperton conveyed to Wunderlin. At the close of the plaintiff's statement, defendant moved that he be nonsuited, because it appeared that the legal title was in the defendants, and that the plaintiff, at most, had only the equitable title which Clark had; or, in other words, a right to go into equity to compel a conveyance. The court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

         COUNSEL

          George W. Tyler, for the Appellant.

         Provines & Johnson, and S. F. Gilcrest, for the Respondents.


         OPINION          By the Court:

         In concluding that the title of the plaintiff was equitable merely, the court below must have overlooked the fact that Hayes and Caperton had conveyed the premises directly to the plaintiff. At the time that the latter conveyance was made, the legal title was in the grantors; for the instrument previously delivered by them to Clark (which is the pretended deed to Marshall) was void as a conveyance--there being no grantee mentioned therein.

         Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.


Summaries of

Wunderlin v. Cadogan

Supreme Court of California
Oct 1, 1875
50 Cal. 613 (Cal. 1875)

In Wunderlin v. Cadogan, 50 Cal. 613, it is held that a deed without the name of a grantee is void, and, if one to whom it is delivered inserts the name of a grantee the named grantee gets no title.

Summary of this case from Jay v. Dollarhide
Case details for

Wunderlin v. Cadogan

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN WUNDERLIN v. JAMES J. CADOGAN et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Oct 1, 1875

Citations

50 Cal. 613 (Cal. 1875)

Citing Cases

Trout v. Taylor

The blank deeds signed by respondent and subsequently filled out under Neilson's direction, with Meng's name…

Tasker v. Nieto

No California case has ever held that a deed is invalid because the name of the grantee does not appear in…