Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Hood v. Webster

(1936)

New York Court of Appeals - 271 N.Y. 57

tl;dr:

A good faith purchaser for valuable consideration with a recorded deed has a better claim to title than a prior purchaser with an unrecorded deed; but, he has the burden of demonstrating consideration.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Hood v. Webster

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hood v. Webster case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingHood v. Webster case brief facts & holding

Facts:Florence Hood inherited a farm after her husband died, but...

Holding:The court held that Webster had not met his burden...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hood v. Webster case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Hood v. Webster | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Loughran, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves a dispute over the ownership of a farm land. The plaintiff claims ownership based on a prior deed held as an escrow, while the defendants claim ownership based on a subsequent deed that was recorded first. The court held that the defendants have the burden of proving that they are purchasers in good faith and for a valuable consideration, as required by section 291 of the Real Property Law. The court clarified that previous cases do not contradict this ruling and that the burden of proof can refer to either the burden of establishing the proposition in issue or the burden of producing evidence. The court also noted that the burden of proof is on the holder of an unrecorded conveyance when a subsequent deed first recorded acknowledges receipt of a consideration sufficient to satisfy the statute.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hood v. Webster case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: Crane, Ch. J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting opinion in a real property case disagrees with the lower courts' decision to grant the farm to the plaintiff without requiring him to pay the money he owed to the estate. The Real Property Law in New York states that a conveyance must be recorded to be valid against subsequent purchasers in good faith and for valuable consideration. The burden of proof should rest with the person who asserts the invalidity, even when it comes to valuable consideration. The plaintiff received the farm from the deceased widow in exchange for a promise to pay her $200 a year, but he never paid her anything and owed her $4,000 at the time of her death. The agreement between the plaintiff and Florence Hood required her to work the farm and pay all taxes and upkeep out of its produce, which she did. In exchange, the plaintiff agreed to pay her $200 per year during her lifetime and was given a $1,200 mortgage on a Nebraska property. The deed executed by Florence Hood in 1913 stated that William J. Hood agreed to pay her $200 per year during her lifetime, in addition to any income she derived from the farm, in exchange for the deed and other covenants and agreements expressed in the instrument. The agreement provided Florence Hood with a sense of financial security.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hood v. Webster case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Hood v. Webster case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Hood v. Webster

Chat for Hood v. Webster
brief-645
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.