75 Cal. App. 540 - Jones v. Coulter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘There can be no doubt as to the utter invalidity of the instruments under which appellant’s grantor, Meng, deraigned his purported title. The blank deeds signed by respondent and subsequently filled out under Neilson’s direction, with Meng’s-name inserted as the purported grantee, were mere nullities. According to the great weight of authority, a deed executed in blank is void and passes no title. (Wunderlin v. Cadogan, 50 Cal. 613 , and cases cited infra.) As was said in Whitaker v. Miller, 83 Ill. 381 , “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void”. In the instant case each of the instruments signed by respondent was wanting in all three of these essentials to a valid deed. Though the decisions of other jurisdictions are not in entire harmony upon the question, it has been definitely decided in this state that under our statute of frauds the name of the grantor or grantee or a description of the property cannot be inserted by an agent for the grantor, in the absence of the latter, unless the agent’s authority be in writing. If the authority of the agent be not in writing, his insertion of the name of grantor or grantee or description of the property does not pass the title. (Upton v. Archer, 41 Cal. 85 [ 10 Am. Rep. 266 ]; Vaca Valley etc. R. R. v. Mansfield, supra [ 84 Cal. 560 ( 24 Pac. 145 ) ]; Harris v. Barlow, 180 Cal. 142 [ 179 Pac. 682 ]. See, also, Lund v. Thackery, 18 S. D. 11”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trout v. Taylor