Woodson v. McCune

Citations

• 17 Cal. 298

Syllabus

<p>In ejectment for a tract of land—plaintiff claiming under a deed from one McDowell—the case turned upon the question whether plaintiff, at the time of his purchase from McDowell, had notice of a prior verbal sale of the land from McDowell to defendant. The jury to whom this question had been submitted in special issues, returned a verdict—“If possession was notice, he had:” Held, that this finding is insufficient, because equivocal—neither finding directly the fact of possession, nor the time of it, nor the kind of possession.</p> <p>The rule in Hunter v. Watson §• Vance (12 Cal. 363) as to possession being notice of a sale or conveyance, is not confined to the case of an unrecorded deed, but applies as well to any other title consistent with the possession.</p> <p>This Court refused in this case to render judgment in favor of defendants upon the findings, on the ground that the verdict does not find the facts in issue with sufficient distinctness.</p>