Anderson

Anderson v. Yoakum

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 668·94 Cal. 227·29 P. 500
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 31, 1892No. 14289California479 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Garoutte, J.

This is an action to quiet title. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and order denying her motion *228 for a new trial. Respondents are successors in interest of one McKenna. At the time McKenna prepared his application to purchase the land involved in this litigation from the state, and prior to the filing of such application, he remised, released, and quitclaimed his interest in the property to appellant by deed duly executed and acknowledged. The habendum clause in said deed was as follows: “ To have and to hold all and singular the above mentioned and described premises, together with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever, and also any estate, right, title, or interest which the said party of the first part may hereafter acquire in and to the above-described premises.” Subsequently to the date of'said deed, Mc-Kenna’s application to purchase was approved, a certificate was issued to him, and his assignee of such certificate obtained the patent which now rests in the respondents.

The only question involved in this appeal is, Did the deed of McKenna to plaintiff vest his after-acquired title in her? In other words, did the…

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.