property except privilege (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

property except privilege in California

6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1943–1969 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
Mercury Herald Co. v. Mooregreen
cal · 1943 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 1947–1967
2 sentences

1967“Upon execution of the deed [to the state] the property owner forfeited all rights in the property except the privilege of redeeming it at any time before the state disposed of it” (Mercury Herald Co. v. Moore, 22 Cal.2d 269, 273 [ 138 P.2d 673 , 147 A.L.R. 1111 ]).

1967“Upon execution of the deed [to the state] the property owner forfeited all rights in the property except the privilege of redeeming it at any time before the state disposed of it” (Mercury Herald Co. v. Moore, 22 Cal.2d 269, 273 [ 138 P.2d 673 , 147 A.L.R. 1111 ]).

44
Anglo California National Bank of San Francisco v. Lelandgreen
cal · 1937 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1948–1961
2 sentences

1961Bank v. Leland, 9 Cal.2d 347, 353 [ 70 P.2d 937 ].) However, the only difference between the state's title and that of a private purchaser is the privilege of redemption. `Upon execution of the deed [to the State] the property owner forfeited all rights in the property except the privilege of redeeming it at any time before the state disposed of it.' ( Mercury Herald Co. v. Moore, 22 Cal.2d 269, 273 [ 138 P.2d 673 , 147 A.L.R. 1111 ].) The state's title is absolute, but subject to defeasance should the former owner exercise his privilege of redemption.

1961Bank v. Leland, 9 Cal.2d 347, 353 [ 70 P.2d 937 ].) However, the only difference between the state's title and that of a private purchaser is the privilege of redemption. `Upon execution of the deed [to the State] the property owner forfeited all rights in the property except the privilege of redeeming it at any time before the state disposed of it.' ( Mercury Herald Co. v. Moore, 22 Cal.2d 269, 273 [ 138 P.2d 673 , 147 A.L.R. 1111 ].) The state's title is absolute, but subject to defeasance should the former owner exercise his privilege of redemption.

22
People v. Maxfieldgreen
cal · 1947 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1948–1969
2 sentences

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

12
People v. Lucasgreen
cal · 1961 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
2 sentences

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

11
Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchelgreen
calctapp · 1948 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
2 sentences

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

11
Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruzgreen
calctapp · 1951 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
2 sentences

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

11
Peterson v. Johnsongreen
cal · 1952 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
2 sentences

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

1969(People v. Lucas, 55 Cal.2d 564, 568 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 745 , 360 P.2d 321 ] ; Peterson v. Johnson, 39 Cal.2d 745, 748 [ 249 P.2d 17 ]; People v. Maxfield, 30 Cal.2d 485, 487 [ 183 P.2d 897 ] ; Peninsula Properties Co. v. County of Santa Cruz, 106 Cal.App.2d 669, 681 [ 235 P.2d 635 ]; Merchants Finance Corp. v. Kuchel, 83 Cal.App.2d 579, 581-582 [ 189 P.2d 513 ].) In the instant ease Brinker was not the owner of the subject real property at the time of his death; the trial court properly so found.

11
Curtin v. Kingsburygreen
calctapp · 1916 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1943–1943
2 sentences

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Chapman v. Zobelein neutral
scotus · 1915
2 sentences

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

11943–1943
Helvey v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n green
calctapp · 1941
2 sentences

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

11943–1943
Chapman v. Zobelein green
calctapp · 1912
2 sentences

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

11943–1943
Young v. Patterson green
calctapp · 1908
2 sentences

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

11943–1943
Buck v. Canty green
cal · 1912
2 sentences

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

11943–1943
Fox v. Wright green
cal · 1907
2 sentences

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

11943–1943
Baird v. Monroe green
cal · 1907
2 sentences

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

1943(Buck v. Canty, 162 Cal. 226 [ 121 P. 924 ]; Fox v. Wright, 152 Cal. 59 [ 91 P. 1005 ]; Baird v. Monroe, 150 Cal. 560 [ 89 P. 352 ]; Helvey v. Bank of America, 43 Cal.App.2d 532 [ 111 P.2d 390]; Curtin v. Kingsbury, 31 Cal. App. 57, 61 [ 159 P. 830 ]; Chapman v. Zobelein, 19 Cal.App. 132 [ 124 P. 1021 ], aff’d 237 U.S. 135 [ 35 S.Ct. 518 , 59 L.Ed. 874 ]; Young v. Patterson, 9 Cal.App. 469 [ 99 P. 552 ].) The property owner thereafter had at most an offer enabling him to regain title to the property, which could be revoked by the state at any time before acceptance.

11943–1943

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check