Wunderlin v. Cadogan
STEPHEN WUNDERLIN v. JAMES J. CADOGAN
- Area
- civil
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
By the Court :
In concluding that the title of the plaintiff was equitable merely, the court below must have overlooked the fact that Hayes and Caperton had conveyed the premises directly to the plaintiff. At the time that the latter conveyance was made, the legal title was in the grantors; for the instrument previously delivered by them to Clark (which is the pretended deed to Marshall) was void as a conveyance—there being no grantee mentioned therein.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial. Remittitur forthwith.
Cited by
- Jay v. Dollarhide Civ. 1067 · 1970-01-28
- Green v. MacAdam Civ. 5976 · 1959-11-20
- Trout v. Taylor Docket Nos. L.A. 12510, 12574. · 1934-04-30
- Tasker v. Nieto Docket No. 4121. · 1930-09-08
- Tannahill v. Greening Docket No. 4601. · 1927-09-30
- Jones v. Coulter Docket No. 4676. · 1925-12-11