Gage v. Downey
Citations
- 79 Cal. 140
- 21 P. 527
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 685
Syllabus
<p>Appeal — Dismissal — Notice op Motion for New Trial. — Motion to dismiss the appeal in this case because no notice of motion for new trial appeared in the record, denied upon the authority of Pico v. Oolm, 78 Cal. 384.</p> <p>Mortgage — Decree of Sale — Presumption prom Lapse op Time.—In the absence of proof that property decreed to be sold upon foreclosure of a mortgage in 1856 was ever sold, it may be conclusively presumed, in an action of ejectment commenced in 1883, that the mortgage debt was paid, and that the property was never sold.</p> <p>Husband and Wipe — Action for Separate Property — Judgment—Bes Adjudicata. — A judgment in favor of a widow against the administrator and heirs of her deceased husband, establishing her right to certain land as having been acquired by her husband’s investment of her separate funds, and compelling a conveyance to her of such land, conclusively determines that that land belonged to her as her separate estate, and that the estate of the husband had no title to it acquired from any other source; and a title acquired by the husband from another source cannot prevail as to any portion of the land included in the judgment.</p> <p>Id.—Pleading — Description op Lands — Deraignment op Title___ Beference made in the complaint in an action to adjudge certain lands to be the separate property of the wife to a particular grant of land which was mortgaged to the husband for a loan of the wife’s money, and under which the husband acquired title, and also to a homestead which was set off to the mortgagor, and mortgaged to the husband to secure said loan, and to the mortgagor’s “right” to the property described, are mere matters of description to identify the land claimed by the wife, and should not be regarded as setting forth a particular deraignment of title as the sole ground of the action. Such action challenges the husband’s title to the land described, derived from any source, and title from another source which would defeat the wi
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- providing, as examples, a defendant “going on the lam to avoid prosecution, filing a series of frivolous pretrial motions, or securing the unavailability of a critical prosecution witness”
- trial court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial grounds is reviewed for abuse of discretion only
- “Release on bond does not absolve the State of its constitutional obligation to bring those accused of committing crimes to trial in a speedy manner.”
- one year marks the point where deliberateness in prosecuting a crime turns generally into presumptively prejudicial delay
- appellant must be “dogged” in the assertion of his speedy trial rights
- delay of two years, two months, and twenty-three days was presumptively prejudicial
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beatty, Thornton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.