Hurt

Hurt v. Pico Investment Co.

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 106·1932 Cal. App. LEXIS 282·15 P.2d 203
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 20, 1932Docket No. 979.California3,022 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Jennings, J.

Plaintiff instituted this action to quiet title to certain real property. The complaint is in the form usually employed in actions of this character. It alleges ownership in fee in plaintiff and that defendants claim some interest in the property adverse to plaintiff which claim is alleged to be without right. The prayer is that defendants be required to set forth the nature of their claims and that it be adjudged that defendants have no interest in the property and that plaintiff’s title thereto be quieted. The answer of defendant Pico Investment Company denies that plaintiff is the owner in fee of the land, admits that defendants, or some of them, claim some interest in the land which is alleged to be a valid claim and closes with the prayer that plaintiff take nothing by his complaint. Upon the issues thus presented by the pleadings the case was tried. During the trial of the action plaintiff introduced in evidence a deed to the land, dated January 25, 1928, executed to him as grantee by a commissioner appointed by the Superior Court of Los Angeles County in an action instituted for the purpose of foreclosing a mortgage upon the land, and rested his case. The commissioner’s…

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.