Unger

Unger v. Mooney

Good Law
1883 Cal. LEXIS 536·63 Cal. 586
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 29, 1883California4,088 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thornton, J.

This is an action to recover possession of an undivided half of a lot of land situate in the city and county of San Francisco, to which the Statute of Limitations was pleaded. The court held against the defendants on this plea, and judgment passed for plaintiff. The defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied. One of the grounds on which t-hic motion was denied was the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding on the issue joined on the plea of the statute above mentioned.

The findings of fact, so far as they are adverted to or necessary to be remarked on herein, are as follows: —

“ 1. That one Frederick S. Sproul, on the 1st day of December, in the year 1863, was the owner in fee and in possession of the lot of land described in the complaint in this action.

“ 2. That said Frederick S. Sproul and Phebe C., his wife, on the 27th day of February, in the year 1865, granted, bargained and sold said premises to James Brokaw and J. "W. Met-calf, by deed duly recorded on the same day, who entered into the possession of said premises under said deed.

“3. That said Frederick S. Sproul, Phebe C. Sproul, his wife, and James Brokaw, on the 2d day of January, in the year…

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.