This action was originally commenced in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District for Solano County, hut was afterwards transferred to ¡Napa County.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“I am of the opinion that the franchise in question is real estate; that in its transfer it is to be governed by the rules applicable to the transfer of title to other real estate.”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1872-01-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 1949
8 state decisions
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.
¶2
I concur in the foregoing opinion and judgment, and I am of the opinion that the franchise in question is real estate; that in its transfer it is to be governed by the rules applicable to the transfer of title to other real estate—the provisions of the Statute of Frauds, and the rules in equity, respecting the creation of trusts—and that the evidence in this case fails to show the creation of a trust in favor of the plaintiff within those rules.
¶3
Mr. Chief Justice Sprague did not participate in the foregoing decision.
