Lake

Lake v. O'Brien

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 519·54 Cal. App. 543·202 P. 158
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 14, 1921Civ. No. 3553.California478 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Craig, J.

This action is one to quiet title. [1] The complaint was in the usual form; the answer denied plaintiff’s ownership and on the trial the following facts were established in connection with the introduction of plaintiff’s evidence. That she was the owner of the property from June, 1913, to October, 1914; that she deeded the property to one Creighton in October, 1914. This deed was recorded at plaintiff’s request but not delivered to Creighton; that the deed was made to avoid plaintiff’s creditors taking the property to satisfy debts; that while he was still the record owner, Creighton deeded the land to the defendant, and received therefor from the defendant four hundred dollars, which he immediately gave to the plaintiff and informed her of what he had done. Plaintiff kept this money and has never offered to return it. There is an absence of evidence tending to show that O’Brien had no knowledge that Creighton was not the holder of the full title to the property. .

We have no doubt that upon this statement of facts the plaintiff is estopped to maintain the action. [2] Estoppel is a rule of evidence by which a man is precluded from alleging or denying a fact, in consequence of his…

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.