Sexson

Nagle Sexson v. Sexson

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 204·52 Cal. App. 644·199 P. 61
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 17, 1921Civ. Nos. 3606, 3607.California1,948 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

James, J.

Two actions were brought in the superior court by the above-named plaintiff against the above-named 'defendant, in each of which judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Separate appeals were taken by the defendant from the judgments. The eases were tried together in the superior court and by stipulation the appeals are presented in the same way.

The actions of the plaintiff were brought for the purpose of having it determined that she was owner of certain real property situated in the city of San Diego. The general allegations of the two complaints were similar, except that the property involved was of different descriptions. For the sake of brevity we will designate the property described in action 3606 as the Horton’s Addition lot, and that described in action 3607 as the Hillerest lot. The plaintiff first alleged that she was, and for a long time prior to the occurrence of the matters stated in her complaint had been, the wife of the defendant; that she was the owner of both of the lots mentioned in her sole and separate right; that in November, 1913, she deeded to the defendant an undivided one-third interest in the Horton’s Addition lot, and in April, 1918,…

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.