Pepin

Pepin v. Stricklin

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 32·1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 726·299 P. 557
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 7, 1931Docket No. 7668.California844 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Dooling, J.

This is an appeal on the judgment-roll alone. Plaintiff and appellant sued to quiet title to two parcels of land. The court found that for a long time prior to June 27, 1923, plaintiff and her husband, the defendant Albert Pepin, had been living separate and apart; that on June 27, 1923, plaintiff entered into two separate contracts with the Bank of Italy to purchase the parcels of land in question; that all payments made by plaintiff upon said contracts were made from her separate earnings; that plaintiff caused said contracts to be issued in the name of herself and said Albert Pepin, her husband, as joint tenants, but not with the intent to convey any interest therein to her said husband; that defendant Bessie I. Stricklin on November 21, 1924, held an unsatisfied judgment against Albert Pepin; that she caused execution to be levied upon all the right, title, claim and interest of Albert Pepin in said two pieces of land and on March 9, 1925, said defendant Bessie I. Stricklin purchased at the éxeeution sale all such interest of Albert Pepin and no redemption was had within the year thereafter. The court further found that defendant Bessie I. Stricklin made all the payments under…

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.