Norris v. Moody
Citations
- 84 Cal. 143
- 24 P. 37
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 776
Syllabus
<p>Grant upon Condition Subsequent — Forfeiture — Common Law — Office Found—Re-entry. — Under the common law, a breach of condition subsequent will not itself revest title to public or private lands granted upon such condition, without office found or a re-entry for the forfeiture.</p> <p>Id. — Alcalde Grant of Pueblo Lands — Denouncement — Civil Law — Forfeiture a Question of Right and Wrong.—The civil law, which applied to all grants made in California prior to the adoption of the common law in 1850, did not require any formal denouncement or re-entry for forfeiture to revest title in a pueblo to lands granted by its alcalde upon condition subsequent, but the question of forfeiture in each case must be determined in view of the circumstances of the case, upon principles of right and wrong.</p> <p>Id. — Inexcusable Breach under Civil Law — Adoption of Common Law — Subsequent Grant — Patent to Pueblo Lands. — Where there was no attempt at any time to perform a condition subsequent contained in an alcalde grant, and nothing to prevent or excuse performance, and an inexcusable breach of the condition had occurred long prior to the adoption of the common law in this state, and for nearly forty years thereafter the grantee remained silent, asserting no claim to the lot, and allowing a subsequent grantee of the city to occupy and improve the premises without objection for thirty years of that time, and finally asserted a right only because of the recent issue of a patent for the pueblo lands of the city, it must be held that all right of the grantee under the grant had been forfeited, and the title reverted in the pueblo before the adoption of the common law, and neither such adoption nor the subsequent issuance of such patent restored to him any right in the premises.</p> <p>Id. — Authority of Decisions — Obiter Dictum — Stare Decisis. — The case of Ton chard v. Touchard, 5 Cal. 307, has not been overruled as an authority; and the case of Hart v. Burnett, 15 Cal. 599, s
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the trial court’s instruction that the attorney’s arguments were not evidence was inadequate to ensure that the jurors did not consider the prejudicial material mentioned by the prosecutor during his closing argument
- finding that general instruction about arguments not being evidence was an inadequate cure for prosecutor's improper argument where evidence was not overwhelming
- finding that general instruction about arguments not being evidence was an inadequate cure for prosecutor’s improper argument where evidence was not overwhelming
- holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s convictions as a party to the crime where he did not fire the shot that struck the victim but where he and his companions went to a crowded pool and engaged in a shootout in which a bystander was shot
- listing the evidence necessary to prove a violation of the Georgia Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act
- finding error because defense counsel “responded that [the generic] instruction [given by the trial court] was insufficient and specifically requested an instruction that the jury disregard the” improper statement made by the prosecutor
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fox
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.