Brusseau

Brusseau v. Hill

Good Law
1927 Cal. LEXIS 464·201 Cal. 225·256 P. 419·55 A.L.R. 157
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 17, 1927Docket No. S.F. 11463.California2,017 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Richards, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor in an action to quiet title to a tract of land in the city of Oakland. The complaint is in the usual brief form of pleading in such actions. The answer consists in equally brief denials of the plaintiff’s ownership and averments to the effect that the title to the premises in question was in Charles Kruse, deceased, at the time of his death, and that the right of possession thereto is in his estate, of which the defendant is the administrator. The findings of fact of the trial court reveal specifically the source and foundation of the plaintiff’s title to the property, and upon the basis thereof finds that all of the allegations of the plaintiff’s complaint are true and that he is the present owner and entitled to the possession of the premises in dispute. The specific findings of the court rest upon uncontradicted evidence as to the transaction and the circumstances surrounding the same, through which the plaintiff acquired whatever rights he asserts in the property. These findings are in substance as follows: That on and before the fourth day of March, 1923, Charles Kruse was the owner and in possession of the premises,…

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.