Terry v. Lesem

CONREY, P. J.

The plaintiff, whose true name is Eva Sophia Lesem, is an unmarried woman and is a daughter of the defendant. “Edith Terry” is a name assumed by the plaintiff and is the name under which she acquired any interest she may have in the property involved in this action.

In her complaint plaintiff alleges that she is, and ever since January 8, 1923, has been the owner of lot nine of block eleven, in the Beverly Tract, in the county of Los Angeles, and that the defendants, without right, claim an interest or estate therein adversely to the plaintiff. As defendant Short disclaimed any interest adverse to plaintiff, we shall treat the case as, if Mrs. Lesem were sole defendant. A second cause of action alleged that plaintiff made, but did not deliver, a deed of conveyance of said lot to the defendant; that the defendant, without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, took possession of said deed and caused the same to be recorded; that said deed, ,so wrongfully obtained, is a cloud upon plaintiff’s title.

Upon issues presented by said complaint and appellant’s answer thereto, and after an extended trial, the court made findings and entered its decree in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant Lesem appeals.

In the case of

Lesem

v.

Terry

(Civil No. 5818)

ante,

p. 674 [265 Pac. 520]. This present case (Civil No. 5819) is between the same parties, and relates to a different parcel of land. The case now before us was tried some time later than the case of

Lesem

v.

Terry.

While there were separate trials, a large part of the evidence in each case covered the same series of transactions and the same relations between the parties. Much of the testimony given at the earlier trial was read into the record in this case. The appeals were presented in a single oral argument, although the records and briefs are sepa

[684]