Krug v. Warden

JAMES, J.

From a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff, intervener Sinelaire has appealed.

This action was to quiet title to certain real property. Plaintiff exhibited in evidence a deed from the sheriff of Los Angeles County made pursuant to a decree foreclosing a mortgage lien against the property in question. This deed was dated the 21st of July, 1916, and recorded in the office of the county recorder on July 26th of the same year. It appeared that during all the time subsequent to the making of said deed plaintiff had- been in possession of the property described therein and claimed to have title thereto. This proof was sufficient

prima facie

to prove ownership. It furnishes sufficient proof of title upon which to base a decree favorable to the plaintiff, without making it necessary that the chain of title precedent to the decree of foreclosure be established. (Sec. 1928, Code Civ. Proc.;

Zilmer

v.

Gerichten,

111 Cal. 73, at p. 77 [43 Pac. 408].) The only interest claimed to be possessed by the intervener was such as he might have obtained by reason of a deed issued to his grantor, one Warden, who had made a purchase under a sale had for a delinquent assessment against the property on account of street improvement work. Sinclair e in this action set forth in full in his answer: (1) the deed of the tax and license collector of the city of Los Angeles, dated the second day of September, 1915, purporting to convey the interest of Robert H. Punter (the alleged owner) to Julia P. Warden, and (2) a quitclaim deed dated the thirteenth day of January, 1920, from said Warden to said intervener. In a former action

(Warden

v.

Bittleston Law & Collection Agency et al.,

41 Cal. App. 1 [181 Pac. 834]), in which the plaintiff here was a defendant, it was held that the first-mentioned deed was void

[565]