Gay v. Hamilton
JOHN C. GAY v. ROBERT HAMILTON
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Sandebson (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Sandebson
By the Court, Sandebson, J.:
It may well be doubted if the testimony of Judge Sawyer was needed for the purpose of explaining the true character of the transaction; but be that as it may, it is well settled in this State that what appears upon the face of the papers to have been an absolute sale and conveyance may be shown by parol evidence to have been intended as a mortgage. (Pierce v. Robinson, 13 Cal. 116; Johnson v. Sherman, 15 Cal. 291; Cunningham v. Hawkins, 27 Cal. 603; Hopper v. Jones, 29 Cal. 19.) This case is not distinguishable from those cited. It was competent, if necessary, to prove by parol that the deed and agreement were parts of the same transaction, and that the transaction, as a whole, amounted to and was intended to be a mortgage.
The money having been received in a fiduciary capacity by the defendant, it was not error to give the plaintiff' a judgment payable in coin.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Cunningham v. Hawkins · 1865-07-01
- Boyd v. Blankman · 1865-07-01
- Johnson v. Sherman · 1860-07-01
- Pierce v. Robinson · 1859-07-01
Cited by
- Raynor v. Lyons · 1869-07-01