Saterstrom v. Glick Bros. Sash Etc. Co.

PRESTON, P. J.

Action to quiet title to real property. Plaintiffs prevailed in the superior court and defendant H. R. Coburn alone appeals.

Appellant contends that the evidence is. insufficient to support the finding of the trial court “that the above named plaintiffs, K. Otto Saterstrom and Anna 0. Saterstrom, are the owners of the fee simple title to the property described in paragraph 3 of plaintiffs’ complaint”, etc.

Plaintiffs relied wholly upon a record title. Their record title is based upon a sale of the property under a deed of .trust. The deed of trust is dated September 1, 1927, executed by Claud Williams and Mary Williams to the Security Title Company, a corporation, and purporting to convey property described as follows:

“All that property in the County of-, State of California, described as:

“Lot thirty nine (39) of Tract number Forty-five hundred eleven (4511) as per map recorded in Book 49, pages 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.”

Appellant contends that the deed of trust is void because of the defective and insufficient description of the property therein set forth. We think this contention must be sustained.

The rule is well established, as stated by this court in

Scott

v.

Woodworth,

34 Cal. App. 400 [167 Pac. 543, 546] :

“ ‘To be valid on its face, a deed must contain such a description of the real property thereby intended to be conveyed as will enable the property to be readily located by reference to the description. ’ It was further declared

[381]

therein that if the writing itself does ‘not furnish the means whereby the description may be made sufficiently definite and certain readily to locate the property, then the instrument must be held void, since the imperfections of the description cannot be supplied through evidence extrinsic to the writing itself without running up against the positive mandate of the rule that a conveyance of-real property must be in writing’.” (See, also,