Cuthbert Burrel Co. v. Shirley

MARKS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment quieting plaintiff’s title to about 12,000 acres of land in Fresno County.

[53]

The sole question presented by appellant, on which he bases his argument for a reversal of the judgment, is that the descriptions of the property contained in the complaint and judgment are too vague and uncertain to describe any property so that the complaint fails to state a cause of action and the judgment fails to describe any property that can be identified.

Were this the ordinary case of an action to quiet title we would be compelled to sustain the argument under the rule laid down in

Aalwyn’s Law Institute

v.

Martin,

173 Cal. 21 [159 P. 158], However, we believe that there are facts presented here that make the application of that rule unnecessary and inequitable.

The appeal is taken on the clerk’s transcript alone. Appellant has caused to be incorporated in the record the exhibits introduced in evidence in the court below.

From those exhibits we learn that for many years plaintiff has been the owner of large tracts of land in the San Joaquin Valley; that on July 4, 1932, plaintiff leased the land in controversy here to Wm. Edward Wright for the term of one year; that on the same day plaintiff gave Wright an option to purchase the same and other property for the sum of $425,000, to be paid on or before January 3, 1933; that the property in controversy here was described in both instruments and in the same manner that it was described in the complaint and judgment; that on July 11, 1932, Wright gave appellant an option to purchase the same property for $1,200,000, $600,000 of which was to be paid in cash on or before January 1, 1933, and the balance by improvement bonds finally accruing July 11, 1937; that on July 11, 1940, Wright and his wife quitclaimed the property to plaintiff. The description in all of these documents corresponds exactly with those used in the complaint and judgment.

Findings of fact and conclusions of law were waived so every intendment is in favor of the correctness of the .judgment and we must presume that all facts were found necessary to support it.