Millett

Millett v. Lagomarsino

Good Law
4 Cal. Unrep. 883·38 P. 308
Supreme Court of CaliforniaNovember 23, 1894No. 15,586California1,610 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs to quiet title to lot 2 in block 22 of the ‘ ‘ City Extension Home *884 stead Association,” at some place not named either in the pleadings or judgment otherwise than that it is in the county of San Mateo. The complaint is in the usual form, alleging that plaintiffs are the owners in fee, and entitled to the possession. The answer denies the ownership and title of the plaintiffs, and alleges title in John B. Cron an, one of the defendants, and that Lagomarsino is in possession under a contract of purchase upon which partial payments had been made, and that he had erected a dwelling-house thereon. The court made the general finding that all the allegations of the complaint are true and the allegations of the answer untrue, and entered a decree quieting plaintiffs’ title, and awarding them possession. The defendants appeal from the judgment and an order denying a new trial.

The lot in question is one hundred feet square, and is one of many lots comprising together about ten acres, which, with other lands, were subdivided by said association (a corporation) prior to 1873. Plaintiffs claim title by adverse possession, and whether they have…

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.