TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McGee v. Sweeney

B. J. McGEE v. EDWARD SWEENEY

McGee v. Sweeney, 23 P. 1117 (Cal. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 8, 1890
Docket
No. 12713
Judges
Hayne
Citations
23 P. 111784 Cal. 1001890 Cal. LEXIS 767
Syllabus
Equity — Jurisdiction or the Person — Conveyance or Property Outside or the State. — Where a court o£ equity has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, it has power to- decree a conveyance by him of property outside of the state.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — Hayne

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hayne, C.

This was an action to have a deed to certain property in Pennsylvania “ declared void,” and for a reconveyance. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and decreed that the defendant, Rosanna McGee, in whom the title stood, should reconvey the property to the plaintiff, and that in default of such leconveyance a commissioner appointed by the court should execute the conveyance. The defendant,Rosanna McGee, appeals upon the pleadings, findings, and judgment; and the principal point made on her behalf is that the court had no power to make such a decree in reference to property outside of the state.

It is well settled, however, that a court of equity has power to compel a reconveyance of property outside of its jurisdiction, by reason of its control over the parties before it.

The only question that can he raised is, whether the court had power to cause the title to property in Pennsylvania to be conveyed by one of its officers. But if the court had no such power the conveyance of such am officer would be void on its face. Th© title would remain *101 in the appellant, and the deed (being void upon its face) would not constitute a cloud. The appellant would not be injured, and cannot complain. If, therefore, the decree be improper in this regard, the error is immaterial.

The point as to the inconsistency of the findings is without merit.

We therefore advise that the judgment be affirmed.

Belches, C. C,, and Gibson, C., concurred.

The Court. — For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1892: 11899: 11910: 11911: 11920: 11923: 11929: 11941: 118922026peak 1892 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Promis v. Duke281 P. 613 (Cal. 1929)
  2. Rosenbaum v. Evans115 P. 1054 (Wash. 1911)
  3. Sullivan ex rel. Orton v. Kenney148 Iowa 361 (1910)
  4. Watson v. Pryor193 P. 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
  5. Tully v. Bailey115 P.2d 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
  6. Idaho Gold Mining Co. v. Winchell59 P. 533 (Idaho 1899)

Most recent

  1. Tully v. Bailey115 P.2d 542 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
  2. Promis v. Duke281 P. 613 (Cal. 1929)
  3. Gotter v. McCulley292 F. 382 (E.D. Wash. 1923)
  4. Watson v. Pryor193 P. 797 (Cal. Ct. App. 1920)
  5. Rosenbaum v. Evans115 P. 1054 (Wash. 1911)
  6. Sullivan ex rel. Orton v. Kenney148 Iowa 361 (1910)

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