TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Randall v. Washington

M. RANDALL, Appellant, v. JANE WASHINGTON Et Al., Respondents

Randall v. Washington, 118 P. 425 (Cal. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 3, 1911
Docket
No. L.A. No. 2627.
Judges
THE COURT.
Citations
118 P. 425161 Cal. 591911 Cal. LEXIS 396
Headnotes
Deed to Married Woman—Presumption op Separate Property—Conclusiveness op Presumption in Favor op bona pide Purchaser.— A deed of grant for a valuable consideration, executed in March, 1906, conveying land to a married woman, is presumed to vest the title thereto in her as her separate property, and such presumption is conclusive in favor of her grantee, who purchased from her in good faith, and for a valuable and adequate consideration.
Summary
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This action was brought to quiet title to realty. Plaintiff’s title was acquired by deed from Lemuel Donaldson and Deleia Donaldson, his wife, of date May 1, 1908. Defendants’ title comes from a deed of the wife Deleia alone. Deleia Donaldson, such are the facts and the findings, acquired title to the property from the Golden State Realty Company by deed of March 3, 1906. The deed was a deed of grant for a valuable consideration and was duly recorded. Title thus stood of record in Deleia Donaldson for a year and ten months, when on December 6, 1907, she conveyed the property for a valuable consideration to the defendant Jane Washington. The court further found that Jane Washington took title in good faith and for a valuable and adequate consideration. The disputable presumption that title to the land in question vested in Deleia Donaldson as her separate property thus became a conclusive presumption in favor of the defendant Jane Washington and the court rendered its judgment accordingly.

Upon this appeal a successful effort is made to show that the property was in fact acquired by the earnings of the husband, Lemuel Donaldson, but no success attends the effort of appellant’s counsel to show, and no evidence supports his statement to the effect that defendant was not a purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration.

The judgment and order appealed from are therefore affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1916: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State National Bank v. Traylor159 P. 1006 (N.M. 1916)

Most recent

  1. State National Bank v. Traylor159 P. 1006 (N.M. 1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list