Flynn

Smith v. Flynn

Good Law
1923 Cal. App. LEXIS 146·64 Cal. App. 218·221 P. 384
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 25, 1923Civ. No. 2729.California707 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Plummer, J.

The plaintiff above named began two actions in the trial court numbered respectively 4711 and 4712 to quiet title to a tract of land situated in Kings County embracing 240 acres. The actions were consolidated for the purpose of trial. Plaintiff had judgment and .the defendant appeals. The testimony shows an unbroken chain of title from the patent issued for the premises in controversy down to and including the deed thereto now held by the plaintiff. One of the deeds, however, is in controversy, to wit, a conveyance executed by the defendant, then Rhoda Park, now Rhoda Park Flynn, in 1905 and by her delivered to her father, Andrew G. Park. This deed upon its face purports to be an absolute deed and is in the form of an ordinary grant, bargain and sale instrument.

The complaint is in the ordinary form of an action to quiet title, alleging ownership in the plaintiff. The answer, after denying ownership in the plaintiff, alleges in paragraph 3 thereof, in substance, that in the year 1905 defendant executed and delivered to one Andrew G. Park, her father, a deed purporting to convey to him the fee to the premises in dispute but that it was understood and agreed between the defendant…

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.