Poorman v. Miller

Citations

• 44 Cal. 269
• 1872 Cal. LEXIS 193

Syllabus

<p>Construction of Deed.—The case of Mayo v. Mazeavx, 38 Cal. 442, affirmed, on the point that the land in Sacramento conveyed by John A. Sutter to John A. Sutter, Jr., by deed, dated October 14th, 1848, was land described in the grant and subsequent patent to Sutter, Sr.</p> <p>Parol Evidence of Contents of a Deed.—Before parol evidence of the contents of a. deed is admissible, it must be shown to have been lost or destroyed.</p> <p>Evidence of Contents of a Deed.—When a deed is given of a tract of land with a reservation of a certain parcel of land within the tract, which had been before conveyed by the grantor to a third party, the boundaries of the reserved tract cannot be proved by a description contained in a deed of a later date from the same grantor to the same grantee, even if given in lieu of the former deed.</p> <p>Idem.—Such former deed is the best evidence of its contents, but if lost or destroyed, parol evidence of its contents is admissible.</p> <p>Idem.—In such case the declarations of the grantor and grantee in the later deed, that it was made in lieu of a former deed of the same land, are not admissible in evidence to lay the foundation for the admission of the later deed in evidence for the purpose of fixing the boundaries of the land conveyed in the former deed.</p> <p>Evidence oe Deceased Witness.—In order to entitle the testimony of a witness, since deceased, to be received in evidence, it must be shown that the testimony was given in a case in which the parties to the suit in which it is offered or their privies were parties.</p> <p>Declarations as Evidence.—Declarations oí a person, since deceased, not against, but in support of his own interest, are not admissible in evidence in favor of those who claim rights which the declarations would maintain.</p>