Bath

Bath v. Valdez

Good Law
1885 Cal. LEXIS 888·2 Cal. Unrep. 498·7 P. 487
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 29, 1885No. 9938California600 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Myrick, J.

Action to quiet title. The court below decreed that plaintiff was the owner of an undivided one-half of the premises, and that certain of the defendants were the owners of the other undivided one-half—one-twelfth each; and that plaintiff had not acquired the interest of the defendants by adverse possession. We are of opinion that the findings are supported by evidence; therefore, we look to the findings and the conclusions of law and decree to determine if any error was committed by the court in making the decree.

In 1862 Julian Valdez had title to the premises as the common property of himself and his wife, Manuela. In 1863 Julian Valdez died intestate, leaving him surviving Manuela, his widow, and his mother, and several brothers and sisters, as his heirs. In April of that year the widow obtained letters of administration. In 1865 Manuela intermarried with one Chavez, and thereafter, in the same year, she and her then husband executed a deed of the premises to one Peppers, by which they remised, released and quitclaimed “all that lot,” describing a tract including the premises in controversy. Under this deed Peppers took and retained possession until, in July, 1872, she…

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.