Stevens

Stevens v. Fetterman

Good Law
1926 Cal. App. LEXIS 475·76 Cal. App. 741·246 P. 102
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 4, 1926Docket No. 3024.California5,882 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hart, J.

This action is by the plaintiff to remove a cloud, from the title to the real property described in the complaint and so to quiet his title thereto. Judgment passed for the plaintiff and the defendants appeal therefrom upon a bill of exceptions.

The controversy is the outgrowth of several transactions, involving, in so far at least as it is required to present a clear understanding of the situation as it is portrayed by the record, three different and distinct pieces of real estate. The real property described in the complaint and as to which relief is herein sought by the plaintiff was at one time owned by one James Keeney and is situated near the city of Azusa, in Los Angeles County. The other two properties are, respectively, a certain bungalow court, in which there are or were several bungalows, said property being situated in the city of Los Angeles and was formerly owned by the plaintiff, and the third consisting of five lots located in the city of Pasadena and owned by Rosa Fetterman, codefendant and wife of George C. Fetterman. For convenience and clarity, and, following the briefs of the parties in that respect, we will refer to these properties herein as the “Keeney…

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.