Lieb v. Superior Court

GRIFFIN, P. J.

This is a proceeding in mandate to compel the respondent court to set aside its order sustaining objections to petitioner’s requests for admissions propounded to Chas. D. Swanner, the real party in interest and plaintiff in the pending action. That action is one to quiet title to a parcel of realty and partition it among the persons found to have an interest therein. Plaintiff claims a one-twelfth interest in fee in the realty by reason of inheritance. The petition does not contain any reference to or copy of the answer of petitioner, but states that petitioner claims an interest in the realty either directly or indirectly from tax deeds. Petitioner served upon plaintiff and on other defendants who answered in the action a document entitled “Request for Admissions of Facts.” Petitioner therein requested the parties served to admit the following:

“1. That on the 5th day of March, 1952, Don S. Mozley was the Tax Collector of Orange County.

“2. That on the 5th day of March, 1952, said Don S. Mozley executed and delivered to defendant Paul D. Lieb a deed conveying an interest in land then owned by the State of California.

“3. That the interest in land described in request No. 2 hereinabove was an undivided % interest in the land described in the complaint herein.

“4. That on March 10, 1952, upon the request of Don S. Mozley at 5 minutes past 11:00 A. M., the deed described in request No. 2 hereinabove was recorded on the official records of Orange County, in Book 2229, page 274 of said records.

“5. That defendant Paul D. Lieb was at the time of the filing of the complaint herein the owner of an undivided % interest in the real property described in the complaint herein.

“6. That defendant Paul D. Lieb is now the owner of an undivided % interest in the real property described in the complaint herein.”

Plaintiff made objection to these requests pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 2019, on the grounds that the first four requests constituted a request for admission of the genuineness of a document and that petitioner failed to furnish plaintiff with a copy thereof. Plaintiff also objected to all

[367]