Morenhaut v. Bell
JACOB A. MORENHAUT v. THOMAS A. BELL
- 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
The Court :
Upon the execution of the deed of Montenegro to Forbes, August 7, 1848, “all the title that Montenegro then held” to the premises described in it, “ passed to and vested absolutely in Forbes.” (Morenhaut v. Barron, 42 Cal. 591.)
The only question that is open for our consideration and determination on this appeal is whether the sale from Monte*339negro to Forbes was subsequently rescinded. Conceding that under the Mexican law such sale might have been rescinded, after the execution of said deed, the Court below found as a fact that it was not, and we think that the findings of the Court upon that and all the other issues were justified by the evidence.
Judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial affirmed.
Myrick, J., expressed no opinion.
Cites, in this corpus
- Morenhout v. Barron No. 1,705 · 1872-01-15