Hunt v. Alamitos Land Co.
Before: Houser
HOUSER, J.
In this action plaintiff sought a decree quieting title as against the several defendants as to a certain lot described in the complaint as lot 4 of block 82 of a survey of a certain tract. The defendants answered and set up a cross-complaint against plaintiff in which it was prayed that the title to apparently the same property, but described as lot 4 of block Z of another survey of the same tract, be quieted as against plaintiff. Judgment went for the defendants on their cross-complaint, and plaintiff appeals therefrom.
Plaintiff claimed through certain mesne conveyances originating in a tax deed, and the defendants claimed as owners both prior to and subsequent to the date of the tax deed. The identity of the property itself was not in dispute. The difficulty consisted only ,in a determination of whether or not it was lot 4 of block 82, or lot 4 of block Z.
[440]
Some years before the litigation here involved was instituted a decree had been granted by the superior court quieting title to plaintiff’s predecessor in interest as against these defendants in lot 4, block 82. Three or four years later an attempt was made to modify that decree by changing the description of the property therein described so that it would apply to lot 4 of block Z. However, it was conceded on the trial that such amended judgment was invalid and of no effect. It appears that the tract which included the property here in question had 'been the subject of several different surveys and resurveys, each of which had been placed of record by the defendants. This particular lot 4 was triangular in shape and was separated from any other lot or block by a street on each of two of its sides, and on its remaining side by the right of way of the Pacific Electric Railway Company. An examination of one of the surveys shows that before the Pacific Electric Railway Company acquired its right of way, lot 4 of block Z was a large lot, which later, possibly by reason of part thereof having been taken for such right of way, was reduced in size and became of the triangular shape. One of the witnesses, who was a surveyor by occupation, testified at the trial that “the lot 4 of the unnumbered block in Map Book 5, page 55, lies in the same position as the southwesterly portion of lot 4, block Z, on the map shown on Miscellaneous Records 43, page 9 and 10.” There was nothing to indicate that this piece of property ever had been a part of block 82, and it is separated therefrom by a street which, according to the map, is over sixty feet in width.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)