Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

40 Cal. 349

Learned v. Welton

California Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1870

California Supreme Court · decided 1870-10-15

Plaintiff demurred to tbe answer on tbe ground that tbe defence set up was insufficient in law, because tbe deed to Brown, wbicb was set out in tbe answer, was a good and valid deed, and transferred to bim all tbe title and possession of Elizabeth S. Welton and her husband, Merit Welton, to tbe real estate therein named. Tbe Court below sustained tbe demurrer, and tbe defendants Merit Welton, Lamson Welton and Amy Welton, appealed. . Tbe other facts are stated in tbe opinion.

Relies on Welton v. Palmer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1870-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1955

4 state decisions

10187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Khodes, O. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion-of the-Court, Wallace, J., apd Sdbague, J., concurring:

¶2Action to quiet title. The answer of Merit Welton, Lamson Welton and Amy Welton alleges that the premises, together with other lands, were conveyed to two trustees, in trust for Elizabeth S. Welton, and that the trustees accepted the trust; that one of the trustees, together with Mrs. Welton and her husband, executed a deed of the premises to George Brown, but that Mrs. Welton did not acknowledge the deed; that the other trustee never executed nor authorized the execution of the deed; that the defendants claim title as the heirs of Mrs. Welton, now deceased; and that the plaintiff derives his claim of title under the deed to George Brown, and in no other manner. The demurrer to the answer was- sustained.

¶3In Welton v. Palmer (39 Cal. 456), we assumed that the' deed to George Brown was void, and this because it was so alleged in the complaint. But whether void or not, it is clear that the conveyance by one of' the trustees, while the other trustee was acting as such, did not pass the legal title to the premises. The cases cited by the defendants, show that a conveyance under such circumstances is not well executed, unless both trustees unite in the conveyance. The basis of the complaint is, that the plaintiff is the owner in fee of the premises. The answer shows that he does not hold the legal estate, and the demurrer, therefore, should have been overruled.

¶4Judgment as to Merit Welton, Lamson Welton and Amy Welton reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to their answer.

Tekple, J., expressed no opinion.Mr. Justice Obockett, being disqualified, did not sit in this case.

¶5Taylor v. Welton[No. 2,550]. — Upon the authority of Learned v. Welton[No. 2,549] judgment as to Merit Wei-*351ton, Lamson Welton and Amy Welton, reversed and canse remanded, with directions to overrule, tbe demurrer to tbeir answer.

Temple, J., expressed no opinion.Mr. Justice Crockett, being disqualified, did not- sit in this case.

¶6Butler v. Welton[No. 2,551]. — Upon tbe authority of Learned v. Welton[No. 2,549] tbe judgment as to Merit Welton, Lamson Welton and Amy Welton, reversed and 'cause remanded, witb directions to overrule tbe demurrer to tbe answer,.

Temple, J., expressed no opinion.Mr. Justice Cbockett, being disqualified, did not sit in tbis case.
/40/cal/349 · .json · Public domain