Bohn v. Gunther

California Court of Appeal Feb 8, 1912 No. Civ. No. 888.Published

Before: Burnett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the finding that the defendant voluntarily delivered a deed of gift to the plaintiff, and that the trial court properly quieted title in the plaintiff subject to a life estate for the defendant, even though the life estate was not specifically pleaded.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the finding that the defendant delivered the deed of gift to the plaintiff.
Whether a court in an action to quiet title may award a life estate to the defendant when such interest was not specifically pleaded.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment of the lower court is not only amply sustained but that it is eminently just and equitable.”

“The title in fee, however, was directly in issue and this would include any less estate, and the court, under our practice, in an action to quiet title would certainly not be precluded from determining just what estate each party owns.”

Synopsis

Action to Quiet Title—Deed op Gift to Plaintiff—Delivery—Pre- ' sumption—Support of Finding and Judgment.—Where the plaintiff in an action to quiet title produces a deed of gift to her from the defendant, she has the right to rely upon the presumption of its delivery from the fact of her possession, unless overcome by counter-evidence; but where in addition to her own testimony as to its delivery, the presumption was also strongly fortified- by the positive testimony of a number of other witnesses, a finding of such delivery is amply supported by the evidence, and is sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered in her favor.

Id.—Judgment for Life Estate in Defendant Within Jurisdiction—Title in Controversy—Pleadings.—Where, in the action to quiet title, the title was in controversy, and each party sought to quiet title, and to cancel a deed, and there is sufficient evidence, including the testimony of the plaintiff and defendant, • corroborated by correspondence, as well as by the terms of the deed of gift, making it evident that it was distinctly understood that defendant was to have the use and enjoyment of the property during his life, and that plaintiff was to have the fee subject to such life estate, the court had jurisdiction in equity to determine the true estates of the respective parties, and to find and adjudge the title in plaintiff, subject to such life estate, though not specially referred to in the pleadings.

Id.—Whole Title in Controversy Inclusive of Part.—Since the whole of the title in controversy includes a part thereof, it cannot be said that the finding of a life estate in the defendant is entirely outside of the matter alleged in the pleadings of the respective parties in the action to quiet title as framed therein.

Id.—Just and Equitable Judgment.—It is held that, accepting the facts found, as must be done under the established rule applicable to appellate tribunals, the judgment of the lower court as rendered for each party is not only amply sustained, but is eminently just and equitable.

Opinion — Burnett

BURNETT, J.

The record contains evidence of the following facts: In 1853 the defendant left Germany, his native land, and, coming to the United States, located in the city of Cleveland, Ohio. There he became well acquainted and friendly with another German by the name of Bodenstein, the grandfather of Ida Bohn, the plaintiff herein. She and her parents since birth had lived in Cleveland. Defendant came to California in 1858, and, in 1860, located on the land in dispute, known as Gunther’s Island. Upon returning to Germany in 1893 he stopped at Cleveland for the purpose of visiting his friend, Bodenstein, and there he became acquainted with Mr. and Mrs. Bohn and their daughter Ida, plaintiff herein. He formed an attachment for the girl and he concluded that it would be a good plan to get the Bohns to permit him to take Ida to California and to make her home with him, his purpose being to adopt her as his child and thereby enable her to inherit his property. He was a bachelor, and there was no one about him for whom he had any special fondness. Prior to 1900 some friendly correspondence passed between him and Mrs. Bohn in which he expressed his desire to have her daughter Ida come to California to make her home with him. The parents objected to this. In 1900 he made a trip to Cleveland and spent nine weeks at the home of the Bohns. On one occasion he put his hand upon Ida’s shoulder and told her that he had come to Cleveland

[193]

for the purpose of taking her with him to California, and, before leaving for home, he told her parents that he would see them all in California before a great while. After returning to Eureka further correspondence ensued between him and Mrs. Bohn in which he urged her to persuade Mr. Bohn to dispose of his property there and come to California. In 1901 the Bohns did dispose of their property at a sacrifice, he being engaged in the mercantile business, and they came to Humboldt county, with the understanding that the realty herein involved should become the property of plaintiff. Among the letters from Mr. Gunther to Mrs. Bohn was one dated Eureka, December 21, 1899, which expresses clearly his sentiments toward plaintiff and his purpose in relation to the property at that time. In the letter, among other statements, he used this language: “Ever since I came from Europe six years ago, I have been thinking what to do with my property in case I die. My half-brothers and sisters would be glad if I died, so that they could get my money and I do not intend that they shall get it. . . . Last year I built a new house, and I have been thinking what would become of that house if the people I have, left me, and I have thought of Ida ever since we moved in the house. ... I was confident you would not object if I adopted Ida as my daughter since she would be your child as much as she ever was, nor could I think more of Ida after adopting her than I do now, but I would have the consolation to know that my property after I die would not be ate up by lawyers, or go to parties who do not deserve it. ’ ’ In the same letter he wrote to Ida: “Why I was so anxious that you should come now, I have explained to your mother. You may not be able to judge of the matter now as well as in later years, but in the end you will find that if my plans do not succeed my intentions were good.” Some time after the Bohns arrived in Eureka and were living on the island, the defendant made this statement to Mrs. Bohn: “Now, I will have to get this fixed up for Ida; I want to get that all fixed right, these dizzy spells may come over me at any time, and my money would go where I wouldn’t want it to, and I am going to look after that.” Shortly after the Bohns arrived, defendant asked plaintiff how she spelled her name. He made no explanation at that time, but later he gave her

Bohn v. Gunther

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Burnett

BURNETT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

Opinion — Burnett

BURNETT, J.

AI Brief