Skip to main content
· 9/5/1889

Adams v. Lambard

Citations

  • 80 Cal. 426
  • 22 P. 180
  • 1889 Cal. LEXIS 934

Syllabus

<p>Trust — Agreement to Beconvey—Confidential Belations—Parol Agreement — Evidence of Consideration—Enforcement of Trust. —When the owner of an interest in a mine stands in confidential relations to parties to whom he conveys such interest in full satisfaction of certain debts for which he and the former owner of the remaining interest in the mine are personally liable, in pursuance of a parol agreement that when the mine had paid to the grantees a sufficient sum for the reimbursement to them of the amount of the satisfied indebtedness, besides 'operating expenses, they should reconvey one half of the interest granted to the grantor, and a written agreement for such reconveyance is accordingly made at a subsequent date, expressing a consideration of one dollar, parol evidence is admissible to prove the original parol agreement, and to show the true consideration, both of the deed and of the written agreement, which together constituted one transaction, and upon the happening of the contingency provided for, a trust is created in favor of the grantor, which, being fully executed on his part, a court of equity will enforce.</p> <p>Id. — Accounting of Indebtedness—Purchase of Outstanding Title. — Upon an accounting of the indebtedness for which the grantees were to he reimbursed from the proceeds of the mine before reconveyance to the grantor, money paid by the grantees for the purchase of the remaining interest in the mine from a third party, to whom such interest had been sold prior to the agreement, cannot he considered as constituting any part of the indebtedness which the grantor undertook to pay by his conveyance.</p> <p>Id. — Allowance of Interest on Indebtedness and Advances__Since, under the facts of this case, the indebtedness no longer existed, but was paid for and discharged by the conveyance of the mine, and the working of the mine could not be compelled, it cannot be taken to he within the contemplation of the parties that interest should he allowed on th

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • rejecting petition for voluntary discipline for failing to address the alleged violations of Rules 3.1 and 8.4 (a) (4)
  • rejecting petition for voluntary discipline for failing to address the alleged violations of Rules 3.1 and 8.4 (a) (4)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Paterson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.