Skip to main content
· 7/1/1869

Brooks v. Hyde

Citations

  • 37 Cal. 366

Syllabus

<p>Dedication ot Land to Homestead Purposes.—The party in possession of land • by a dedication of the same to homestead use does not acquire any title which he did not before possess, and if he is in possession wrongfully, he does not acquire thereby any defense against the claim of the true owner; but as against the creditors of such party, such dedication to homestead purposes protects the land as much as though he was vested with the fee simple title.</p> <p>Homestead.—In questions arising between homestead claimants and those claiming under or against them as creditors, the question as to whether the homestead claimant has or has not title is immaterial.</p> <p>Title by Van Hess Ordinance.—If, on the first day of January, 1855, a person was in possession of land in San Francisco, within tho limits of the Van Ness Ordinance, as tho tenant of another, or, as against such person, an intruder who could have been evicted by legal process, the person thus in possession did not acquire title by the Van Ness Ordinance, but the title vested in the landlord or the person who could have recovered possession.</p> <p>Deed of Homestead.—A deed of a homestead, executed by the husband alone, gives no right of entry to the grantee, so long as the grantor continues to occupy the premises as a homestead.</p> <p>GrRANTOR wno Remains in Possession.—Where a person in possession of land conveys to another, and thereafter remains in possession, he does so as the tenant at will of the grantee. The conventional relation of landlord and tenant does not, however, exist between the grantor and grantee. The grantor holds in subserviency to the grantee, who may recover possession at any time.</p> <p>Word “Tenant” in Van Ness Ordinance.—The Court are inclined to consider the word “tenant,” as used in tho Van Ness Ordinance, as meaning a conventional tenant.</p> <p>Effect of Deed of Homestead by Husband.—If a deed of the homestead is executed by the husband alone, and he remains thereafter in p

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[A]lthough the recital in the deed was not evidence, the deed was sufficient to show prima facie good title in the grantee. The defendants introduced no evidence to refute such recital.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crockett, Rhodes, Sanderson

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.