Rimmer

Rimmer v. Hotchkiss

Good Law
14 Cal. App. 556·1910 Cal. App. LEXIS 356
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 1910Civ. No. 759.California2,487 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Action to quiet title to certain real estate situate in Fresno county. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the order denying their motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.

In their answer defendants deny that plaintiff has title to the land in question and alleges title in themselves hy virtue of certain tax sales, conveyance of the land hy reason thereof to the state and by the state to defendants’ grantor and ask that their title be quieted against plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiff deraigned title by patent from the United States. Two pieces of land are involved, namely, the N. W.¼ of Sec. 8, T. 18 N., R. 17 E., M. D. M., patented to Elizabeth Rimmer, formerly Elizabeth Hurst, widow of Josiah Hurst, deceased, now the wife of William H: Hurst, and the S. W.¼ of the same section, patented to William H. Hurst. Elizabeth conveyed to plaintiff in whom title vested at the beginning of the action. It appears from the bill of exceptions that “said deed and patents were sufficient in form and substance to vest the title to said property in plaintiff, unless the same is affected or divested by tax sales or purported tax sales and proceedings under which defendants claim title.” We…

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.