In re Hunt

Good Law
1 Cal. Super. Ct. 11
Superior Court of CaliforniaMarch 6, 1924California1,920 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

In the Superior Court of the State of California

In and for the County of Los Angeles.

In the Matter of the Petition of Aimer Hunt, et al., Application of M. J. Black, No. 5 of the Petition. L. R. 407

The above entitled matter was regularly referred by this Court to Arthur P. Will, Referee, and said Arthur P. Will heretofore filed his report herein, in which among other things, it is stated that petitioner "bought the property in July, 1914, at a tax sale and received a deed from the tax collector. Since that time, that is to say for more than five years, he has paid the taxes. The property is vacant; neither the petitioner nor any tenant of his has lived on the property. To satisfy the requirements of possession Black testifies that during the five years following July, 1914, he was on the property a number of times, that at various times he picked fruit from the trees thereon, and it is in evidence that he, or some one acting for him, trimmed the trees and cut out the suckers. Further, in 1914 Black put up a ‘for sale’ sign on the property, referring inquiries to himself, which sign was knocked down several times during the years that followed, and re-erected until finally,…

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.

In re Hunt · Superior Court of California · 1924 | Caselegis