Wells v. Allen

LENNON, P. J.

This is an appeal on behalf of certain defendants from a judgment rendered for the plaintiff in the above-entitled action, quieting his title to certain real property in the city and county of San Francisco. The defendants, Theodore Verdusco, Michael Verdusco, Muría Castro, and Pablo Castro, her husband, Dolores Bryan and James Bryan, her husband, have appealed pursuant to section 941b of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

The plaintiff, Frank Wells, filed suit to quiet title to certain real property situated in the city and county of San Francisco and particularly described in the complaint filed herein. Emma Allen, as administratrix of the estate of Refugia Wells, deceased, was made a party defendant, as were also, the above named appealing defendants. The complaint set out that all the defendants claimed some right, title, or interest in and to the said property, but that said claims were without right, and asked that the plaintiff’s title be quieted against them.

The defendant, Emma Allen, as administratrix, etc., answered and alleged that the property in controversy was the property of Refugia Wells, deceased, and that she was entitled to the same as administratrix of the estate of said decedent.

[588]

The other defendants answered and claimed the whole of said property as the heirs at law of Refugia Wells, deceased.

The trial court found, in effect: That Refugia Wells, sometimes known as Refugia Verdusco, died intestate; that at the time of her death she was the wife of the plaintiff, Prank Wells; that the property in dispute was community property; that none of the defendants are entitled to any interest in said property, and concluded, as a matter of law, that Prank Wells was the owner in fee simple and entitled to the possession of said property.

The appellants contend that the evidence does not support the findings in certain important particulars. The first objection made by appellants is that the evidence does not support the finding that the plaintiff and the decedsed were husband and wife. The court found all the facts necessary to support a common-law marriage, which was a valid marriage in this state at the time these parties assumed that relation, and an appellate court may not disturb a finding made by the trial court unless it appears that there is no evidence to support it or that the evidence is so clearly preponderating against the finding as to amount in legal effect to a want of substantial evidence.