Mesick v. Sunderland

Citations

• 6 Cal. 297
• 1856 Cal. LEXIS 135

Syllabus

<p>A conveyance of “ the following described property, situate, lying and being in the city of Sacramento and State of California, consisting of two thousand two hundred town lots, be the same more or less, said lots being bounded according to the original plat* or plan of said city,” is void, on account of a patent ambiguity which cannot bej cured by parol evidence. ‘</p> <p>Where the same deed contains a covenant that, in case the grantees therein named shall pay a certain sum of money before a certain day, “then this instrument is to take effect as a full and complete conveyance in fee of all and singular the lands, tenements, hereditaments, appurtenances and real estate in the State of California, belonging to, or in which the said party of the first part, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, is or are in any way entitled or interested,” Held that the payment of the purchase money was a condition precedent to the vesting of the legal estate; that it was the event which cast the title, and not the deed; and the rational intention, gathered from the terms of the instrument, is, that the grantor only bound himself to convey upon the payment of the purchase money.</p> <p>Where the plaintiff in ejectment claimed under a subsequent deed from the grantor in the above instrument, and the defendants held under the grantees named therein, Held that the record of said instrument, in the county recorder’s office, made June 20, 1850, imparted no notice to the plaintiff, who purchased July 9, 1855; the registration of executory contracts not being authorized or made notice by statute.</p> <p>The intention of the Recording Act of this State was to protect the purchaser of the legal title against latent equities, or mere executory agreements, and to abolish the presumption of notice, arising from possession.</p>