Hagge v. Drew, 27 Cal. 2d 368 (1945)

Citation: Hagge v. Drew, 27 Cal. 2d 368 (1945)
Parent Document: Hagge v. Drew, 27 Cal. 2d 368 (1945)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 1945-12-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1114867/hagge-v-drew/ ↗

Full Text

1,483 chars

It is urged that, assuming title was in defendants at the time of the contract of sale insofar as a conveyance by the owner was concerned, yet the finding of ownership in fee simple is against the evidence for the interest of defendants in the property was subject to the trust deed they had given to the trustee in bankruptcy; that a person who holds property on which there is a trust deed outstanding is not the owner in fee simple and that plaintiffs did not know of the trust deed when the contract of sale was made and were thereby defrauded. The evidence supports the conclusion that no representations were made by defendants or their agents in regard to the existence or lack of existence of a trust deed against the property, that is, nothing was said about the matter except to the extent that the statement in the contract, that defendants were the owners in fee simple, could be considered as such. There existed no fiduciary relation between plaintiffs and defendants. They were dealing at arm’s length. For all practical purposes defendants may have been considered, as found by the court, to be the owners in fee simple of the property even though the trust deed was outstanding. “Every estate of inheritance is a fee, and every such estate, when not defeasible or conditional, is a fee simple or an absolute fee.’’ (Civ. Code, § 762.) A fee simple title is one that is inheritable and the holder has the power to transfer. (See In re Barlow v. Security T. & S. Bank,

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text