Overton

Overton v. Schmitt

Good Law
1936 Cal. LEXIS 611·7 Cal. 2d 163·59 P.2d 1017
Supreme Court of CaliforniaAugust 5, 1936Sac. 4981California1,284 words

Opinion

Opinion

Appeal by defendant Amy I. Schmitt from judgment for plaintiffs.

This action was brought by plaintiffs to quiet their title to an 828-acre tract of land in Stanislaus County known as the “Hatmark Ranch”, conveyed to them by deed of Mark and Hattie 0. Page dated July 8, 1931, recorded November 12, 1932. Defendant Amy I. Schmitt, who is the sole appellant and claimant to ownership of said property, filed herein an answer and also a cross-complaint alleging that title had vested in her by virtue of a sheriff’s deed dated February 6, 1934; that said conveyance to plaintiffs by the Pages bore a false date; that it was voluntarily made without consideration, at a time when the Pages were insolvent or in contemplation of insolvency, and in pursuance of a secret agreement to hinder, delay and defraud appellant, as their creditor. (Secs. 3439 and 3442, Civ. Code.) The prayer of the cross-complaint was that the transfer be declared fraudulent as against appellant and that she be decreed the owner in fee of the ranch.

The history of conveyance of the ranch te plaintiffs is shown by the record in substance as follows: In December, 1930, the Pages purchased the Hatmark ranch, subject to…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.