Pitney

Pitney v. Pitney

Good Law
1921 Cal. App. LEXIS 85·55 Cal. App. 22·202 P. 940
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 1921Civ. No. 3961.California3,886 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Sturtevant, J.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants to quiet her title to certain lands in Lake County. In her complaint she named as defendants her four children and a grandchild, the daughter of a deceased child of the plaintiff, and she also named H. B. Witherspoon, the former attorney of the plaintiff, and the holder of the deeds • sought to be canceled and annulled. The summons was served on all of the defendants, three of the defendants appeared and answered, but the other defendants neither appeared nor answered, nor was a default entered. The defendants that answered were George R. Pitney, a son, May Poutch, a daughter, and PI. E. Wither-spoon. On the issues so made the court tried the ease sitting with a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, and brought in five special verdicts: 1. The plaintiff did intend, on October 10, 1916, at the time IP. E. Witherspoon took the written instruments, that the said instruments should become immediately operative as deeds. 2. That plaintiff did intend, at the time H. E. Witherspoon took the written instruments, that such instruments should presently pass title to the land described in them. 3. The plaintiff…

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.