Holliday v. West

Citations

• 6 Cal. 519

Syllabus

<p>At; the civil law, a mere non-performance within a stipulated time, does not, ipso facto, annul a contract, unless, indeed, time is of the very essence of the contract.</p> <p>Where the grantor of defendant obtained an Alcalde's grant to a town lot in 1843, and was put into possession thereof and commenced building thereon, (his grant containing the usual condition of building within one year)) and was compelled to suspend the erection of his house, and the lot remained unoccupied till 1849, when he went again into possession and built a house, which possession was maintained till the bringing of this suit; and the plaintiff's grantor obtained a grant of the same lot in 1847, but never went into possession; Held that there was no forfeiture of the grant of defendant’s grantor on the ground of non-performance within the time, unless something else was done to produce it.</p> <p>And where the grant of plaintiff's grantor was never recorded, and it appears that owing to mistakes having occurred in the granting of lots, grants having in some instances been made to two persons for the same lot, the Alcalde, about six months after giving the grant to plaintiff's grantor, gave notice to all persons to appear and have their grants adjusted, which notice was complied with by defendant’s grantor, but not by plaintiff's grantor, the former being then again placed in possession; It seems that no inference arises that the granting power had resumed the land, as by a forfeiture of defendant’s grantor, for the purpose of granting the lot to plaintiff's grantor.</p> <p>The only conclusion is that the second grant was made by mistake, and that the second grantee was perfectly aware of the invalidity of his grant, and either made no legitimate effort to obtain possession, or did so and failed.</p>