Howe v. Brock

California Court of Appeal Jun 17, 1948 No. Civ. 3693Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish title by adverse possession due to a lack of evidence regarding actual occupation, and that the second probate proceeding was invalid because the estate's assets had already been distributed by a final decree in a prior probate proceeding. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of equitable relief based on the plaintiffs' unclean hands and lack of good faith.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs established title to the mining claim by adverse possession.
Whether the second probate proceeding was valid despite a prior final decree of distribution of the decedent's estate.
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to equitable relief given their conduct in the probate proceedings.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since plaintiffs failed to prove actual occupation of the property, hostility of possession, open and notorious claim of title, or continuous and uninterrupted occupancy for five years their claim of adverse possession was not established.”

“It follows therefore that there was no estate belonging to the decedent which could be distributed in the second probate proceedings, and no title could be conveyed by the deed to Bass.”

“Any unconscientious conduct upon his part which is connected with the controversy will repel him from the forum whose very foundation is good conscience.”

MUSSELL, J. pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants in an action to quiet title to a mining claim situated in the county of Imperial.

The complaint contains an allegation of ownership and right to the possession of the Swallow Placer Mining Claim described therein. It contains a general allegation that defendants claim some right, title, interest, estate or lien in or to the real property adverse to plaintiffs. Judgment is demanded that plaintiffs be declared the owners in fee and entitled to possession and that the claim of the defendants be declared to be without right, null and void. Defendants in their answer deny plaintiffs’ allegation of ownership and right of possession; admit that the defendants claim some right, title and interest in the property adverse to plaintiffs and deny that said adverse claims are without right. Defendants ask that plaintiffs take nothing by their complaint.

Plaintiffs and appellants are the children of Charles H. Swallow and defendants and respondents are distributees of William J. Swallow, deceased.

[273]

William J. Swallow, Ms brother Charles H. Swallow, and six other persons located the mining claim described in the complaint on January 11, 1911, and on that date filed the notice of location in Imperial County.

William J. Swallow died intestate on December 17, 1922. His estate was dnly probated in the county of San Diego and the decree of distribution was entered on January 7,1927.

The decree did not describe the mining claim involved but it did contain a provision distributing all of the property of said estate whether described therein or not to the heirs at law of William J. Swallow.

By the terms of the decree Charles H. Swallow received 12/60 of the estate and the remainder was distributed to the defendants herein and others. Defendants’ claim of ownership and title to their respective interests in the mirnng claim is founded on this decree.

On September 6, 1930, an amended notice of location of the claim purportedly executed by or on behalf of all of the original locators was recorded. This amended notice contained a recital that it was posted for the sole purpose of correcting an error in the original description and that the land discovered and located by the locators had been in their peaceable possession since the date of the original location.

Howe v. Brock

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief