Vaughan

Vaughan v. Knowlton

Good Law
112 Cal. 151·1896 Cal. LEXIS 659·44 P. 478
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 25, 1896No. 19504California2,476 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Action to quiet title. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence McOhesney’s motion for a nonsuit was granted, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment *153 thereon, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The property in controversy is described in the complaint as the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 22, township 4 south, range 10 west, San Bernardino base and meridian, containing ten acres, more or less, and also by metes and bounds. The latter description will be noticed later.

None of the defendants answered except McChesney. His answer denies plaintiff’s ownership “of a strip of land 35.83 feet wide, off the north side of the tract of land described in plaintiff’s complaint,” admits that he claims said strip, and alleges that he is the owner thereof, and entitled to its possession. He also denies plaintiff’s description by metes and bounds, and alleges a different description. In his second defense McChesney describes his own land as the south half of the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of the same section, and also describes it by metes and bounds, and alleges the area to be…

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.