Middelcoff

Middelcoff v. Cronise

Good Law
155 Cal. 185·1909 Cal. LEXIS 411·100 P. 232
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 10, 1909L.A. No. 2291.California2,835 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Angellotti, J.

This is an action commenced in the superior court of Los Angeles County by Mrs. Eliza F. H. Middlecoff and one of her two minor children, against her other minor child and Mrs. Maria H. Cronise, for the partition of three separate parcels of land, situated respectively in the city and County of San Francisco, Los Angeles County, and Sam Joaquin County. The husband of Mrs. Middlecoff is made a party plaintiff and the husband of Mrs.. Cronise is made a party defendant, but neither has any interest in the property.

Mrs. Cronise is interested in the San Francisco, property only, under a deed executed April 28, 1890, by one Maria S. Hubbard, then the owner in severalty of the whole thereof, conveying an undivided one half thereof to her for and during her natural life, amd thereafter to the issue of her body forever, and failing such issue at the time of her death to Mrs. Middlecoff. Mrs. Middlecoff, in the year 1904, quitclaimed her interest in this undivided half to Mrs. Cronise. The other undivided half of the San Francisco property was conveyed on the same day by Mrs. Hubbard to Mrs. Middlecoff for and during her natural life, and thereafter to the issue of her body, and failing…

Addendum

The petition for a rehearing is denied. Petitioners ask that if the rehearing be denied, the affirm anee of the judgment be made without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to commence a new and separate action for the partition of the Los Angeles and San Joaquin properties, and the San Francisco property. The judgment of affirmance in no way affects plaintiffs’ rights in that regard, and no such qualification thereof is essential.

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.