In Re Shoemake

Shoemake v. Lane

Good Law
1931 Cal. LEXIS 720·211 Cal. 457·295 P. 830
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 30, 1931Docket No. S.F. 13429.California1,458 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County denying the claim of appellants to undivided interests in certain real property.

The land was originally owned by B. B. Barnett. On March 14, 1890, he executed a deed of it to his son, F. Joseph Barnett. The instrument recites that “the said party of the first part . . . doth by these presents, give, grant, alien and confirm unto the said party of the second part, and to his heirs, all those certain lots ...” Following is a description of the property and then the habendum, clause: “To have and to hold all and singular the said premises, together with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, for and during his natural life, and to the issue and heirs of the body of the said party of the second part.” At the time of the execution and delivery of this deed, the grantee had a daughter living, Lela Barnett. The grantor died April 17, 1891. Thereafter the grantee, F. Joseph Barnett, brought an action against his daughter, his brothers and his sisters, claiming title to the property in fee simple. It was eventually held that the deed gave him only a life estate. (Barnett v. Barnett, 104 Cal. 298…

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.