San Diego Improvement Co. v. Brodie

SEAWELL, J.

The defendants Percy W. Marshall and Alice C. Marshall appeal from a judgment quieting the title of plaintiff, San Diego Improvement Company, to certain lots situate in Oceanside, San Diego County, in a portion of said town known as Butler’s, Groves’ and Gleichner’s Addition.

The appellants filed an answer in the form of a general denial, but did not set up an affirmative claim of title in themselves. Upon the trial they introduced no evidence whatsoever. As persons not shown to have any right, title or interest in said property, they invoke the rule that the plaintiff in an action to quiet title must recover on the strength of his own title, rather than on the weakness of his adversary’s, and- challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the decree in plaintiff’s favor. The question is, has plaintiff made a

prima facie

case?

The evidence introduced by plaintiff consisted solely of recorded instruments of title by which plaintiff sought to deraign a paper title passing by patent from the United States government or by grant from the state of, California through mesne conveyances to plaintiff corporation. The appeal is taken on a bill of exceptions in which the contents

[100]

of said instruments are set forth in abbreviated form. No evidence was introduced to show that either plaintiff or its predecessors had ever been in possession of said lots or any of them. Where it does not appear that both parties to the action claim through a common grantor, it has been stated to be the law that a plaintiff who relies solely on a paper or record title must trace his chain of title back to the government or to a predecessor shown to have been in possession.

(Scott

v.

Beck,

204 Cal. 78 [266 Pac. 951];

Rockey

v.

Vieux,

179 Cal. 681 [178 Pac. 712] ;