Schluter v. Harvey
Schluter v. Harvey
Opinion of the Court
—1. It is urged by appellant that the respondent cannot claim to be a purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, because the cancellation of a pre-existing indebtedness is not a valuable consideration within the meaning of section 1214 of the Civil Code. But it is the law of this State that such pre-existing debt is a valuable consideration. (Frey v. Clifford, 44 Cal. 335.)
2. It is further insisted that the facts showing respondent to be a purchaser for a valuable consideration were not sufficiently pleaded by him. But there was an attempt to plead them, to which no objection was taken by demurrer or otherwise in the
3. There was evidence to sustain a finding that respondent had no actual notice of the grant to appellant.
4. It is claimed by appellant that the law of this State does not authorize the practice pursued or judgment rendered in this proceeding. In our opinion the action was authorized and the proceeding accords with section 386 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Judgment and order affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- CLAUS SCHLUTER v. CHARLES HARVEY, and HENRY BAUMGARTEN, and J. L. MUTH
- Cited By
- 18 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Consideration—Purchase of Land. — The cancellation of a pre-existing debt is a valuable consideration for a purchase of land. Pleading—Waiver op Defects. — Where a party attempts to plead the facts showing that he was a bona fide purchaser for value, insufficiency of the pleading cannot be considered upon appeal, when no objection was taken by demurrer or otherwise in the court below, and no objection made to the evidence upon the point. Interpleader—Parties—Practice.—A tenant against whom conflicting claims for rent are made, may file a bill of interpleader against the several claimants to determine their respective rights to the rent. In such action, the court may determine the rights of the claimants as between themselves.