Brusie

Brusie v. Gates

Good Law
1892 Cal. LEXIS 941·96 Cal. 265·31 P. 111
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 30, 1892No. 14792California1,125 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vanclief, J.

— Action to quiet title to land. The complaint is in the usual form, praying that defendant be required to set forth the nature of his adverse claim, etc.

Defendant’s answer admits that he claims the land adversely to the plaintiff, and avers “ that on or about the twentieth day of November, 1879, for a good, valúa *266 ble consideration, a grant, bargain, and sale deed of the whole of said described premises was duly executed and delivered to him by one Miner Walden, in whom the legal title to the whole of said described premises was then vested, and who was then in the open and notorious possession of said described premises, and the whole thereof, as the legal and lawful owner thereof, which said deed was sufficient in form and recitals to vest, and it did vest, the title in fee-simple of said premises in this defendant ”; that said deed was duly recorded on the sixth day of January, 1880, and under it defendant entered into possession on November 20, 1879, and has ever since remained in exclusive possession, claiming absolute ownership of the premises.

At the trial, plaintiff claimed title from the same Miner Walden by a sheriff’s sale made by virtue of a writ of execution…

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.