Southern Land Co. v. Paulk

HOLLZER, J.,

pro tem.

Defendants appeal from a decree quieting title in favor of plaintiff. At the trial it was stipulated that in 1916 plaintiff became the owner of the property in question. Defendants claim title by virtue of a decree quieting title to the same property, entered June 9, 1923, in another action, wherein one Joseph Blanchard was plaintiff and H. A. Paulk and W. S. Brush, George B. Raum and One Doe, as trustees of Southern Land Company, an alleged defunct corporation, and certain fictitious named persons, were defendants.

By the decree in that action, hereinafter referred to as the Paulk case, Paulk was substituted as party plaintiff and he was adjudged to be the owner of the property as against all of the remaining parties. In the action at bar the only evidence offered on behalf of the" defendants was the judgment-roll in the Paulk case, and, upon plaintiff’s objection, the trial court refused to admit the judgment-roll in evidence.

The argument advanced in appellants’ brief proceeds upon the assumption that not only this judgment-roll but also that other documents had been received in evidence. The record, however, discloses that the offers to introduce all evidence of a documentary nature, with the exception of the previously mentioned judgment-roll, were withdrawn. Although no point is raised with respect to the ruling of the lower court in rejecting the offer to introduce this judgment-roll, we shall assume that counsel by this appeal really intend to attack such ruling and are seeking a reversal on that ground.

Virtually the precise question involved in the action at bar was presented, and determined adversely to the contention of appellants, in the case of

Usher

v.

Henkel,

205 Cal. 413 [271 Pac. 494], hereinafter referred to as the Usher case. In that action it was stipulated at the trial that the Southern Land Company, a corporation, had become the owner of certain property in July, 1916. It further appeared that

[777]

Usher subsequently had received a tax deed to the same property and thereafter had procured a decree against the said company quieting his title to the said property. In the case cited Usher brought suit to quiet title against one Cr. V. Henkel, evidently the same Henkel who is one of the defendants in the present suit, and, incidentally, represented by the same counsel who now appear for appellants here. In the Usher case Henkel claimed title under a decree in an action, hereinafter referred to as the Henkel case, wherein Josephine Blanchard was the original plaintiff and said Henkel and Usher and said Brush, Kaum and One Doe, as trustees of Southern Land Company, an alleged defunct corporation, and certain fictitious named persons, were defendants. The decree in the said Henkel case recited that suit had been dismissed as against Usher and that G-. V. Henkel had succeeded to the rights of the plaintiff Blanchard and had been substituted as party plaintiff, and the decree further purported to quiet title in favor of Henkel as against the remaining parties.