Norton

Norton v. Walsh

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 728·94 Cal. 564·29 P. 1109
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMay 24, 1892No. 12824California566 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Foote, J.

This action was instituted originally by Jane Fitzpatrick in her own right, against herself as administratrix of the estate of her husband, John Fitzpatrick, deceased, and his heirs at law, two daughters by a former marriage, and their husbands.

*565 To say the least, this effort to contend on one side for individual rights, and upon the other for those of a trustee, by the same person, inconsistent and opposed to each other as they are, is irregular, and not to be upheld.

The action is to quiet the title of the plaintiff to a certain piece of land which she claimed as her own separate property, and which, on the other side, was claimed to be community property.

The court below made findings which sustained the contention of the plaintiff. Before the judgment was entered, Jane Fitzpatrick died, and the present plaintiff, as her successor in interest, was substituted as plaintiff.

The next thing done, upon motion, was an order substituting this same Norton, as defendant, in the place of the two daughters of John Fitzpatrick and their husbands, he, Norton, as it appears from a bill of exceptions filed herein, having bought out the heirs of John Fitzpatrick in this land, and…

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.