Tristam

Tristam v. Marques

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 393·3 P.2d 947
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 6, 1931Docket No. 8088.California2,053 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Jamison, J.

The complaint in this action contains four counts. The first count sets forth that prior to March 1, 1929, plaintiff purchased certain real property from defendant which had thereon an apartment house consisting of nineteen apartments and appurtenances thereto belonging. That said building was located on a hillside of sharp declivity and was supported by a concrete wall which was necessary to the stability of the building. That said wall inclosed an earthen fill. Then follows a description by metes and bounds of the wall and fill. That défendant, prior to the purchase of said building by plaintiff, represented to him that said wall and fill were included within the exterior boundaries of the property described in the deed conveying the premises purchased. That in fact the said earthen fill and a portion of said concrete wall were not within the exterior boundaries of the land described in said deed, which facts the defendant well knew. That said earthen fill and portion of said concrete wall were then and now are a necessary portion and appurtenance to said apartment building. That defendant now claims that he is the owner of said earthen fill and portion of said concrete wall…

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.