Sylvester v. Sellers

STURTEVANT, J.

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to recover a, judgment quieting title to a house and lot in Los Angeles County. The defendants answered and a trial was had before the trial court sitting without a jury. The trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and from a judgment entered thereon the defendants have appealed and have brought up typewritten records.

The plaintiff and Alice Sylvester, now deceased, were husband and wife. The defendants are respectively their daughter and their son. On August 2, 1912, Mr. and Mrs. Sylvester purchased a house and lot from Ruth P.

[570]

Williams. At the time the purchase was made the plaintiff possessed a small amount of money which was his separate property. They used that money in making the down payment. The husband was employed as a mechanic and his wages were used to make the deferred payments. After the property was purchased a small store was installed on the property and during the daytime the store was attended by Mrs. Sylvester and when the husband was at home he assisted in attending to the store. The profits of the store also went into the payments made on the house and lot. All payments had been made as early as the month of April, 1914. The wife had a fairly good education, but the husband had only a slight knowledge of French and less knowledge of English. The deed of August

2,

1912, from Ruth P. Williams was made directly to Alice Sylvester. On October 4, 1912, the husband executed a grant deed to his wife. On January 24,1924, the husband executed a quitclaim deed to his wife. Some time before her death Mrs. Sylvester made a purported will in which she attempted to convey the entire title to their two children, these defendants. The defendants contend that the deeds made by the plaintiff and the will made by their mother vested the title wholly in them and that the trial court erred in making findings in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff replies that the case presented nothing but questions of fact, that those questions of fact rested' on conflicting evidence and that the ruling of the trial court in his favor cannot be disturbed on appeal.

When the action was called for trial the plaintiff took up the burden of proof and throughout the trial continued to bear the burden of proof. Thereafter the trial court made a finding -with reference to each one of the deeds above mentioned. As to the deed from Ruth P. Williams the court found: “That substantially all of the negotiations for and details of said purchase of the above-described real property in said city of Los Angeles were conducted and arranged by the plaintiff’s said wife, Alice Sylvester; that at the time of said purchase of said property, said Alice Sylvester, stated and represented to the plaintiff, William Sylvester, that it would make no difference as to how the title was conveyed or whether the said above described property was received by plaintiff or her, and that in any event, under the laws