Dahler v. All Persons, Etc.

SLOSS, J.

A hearing in Bank was ordered after judgment of affirmance in Department.

After further consideration we are entirely satisfied of the correctness of the views expressed by the Department and adopt the opinion of Henshaw, J., reading in substance as follows:—

“This is an action to quiet title under the provisions of the McEnerney Act. Plaintiff claimed title through her husband, who in turn, deraigned title from the Market & Stanyan streets & Golden Gate Park Land & Improvement Company. Appellants’ contention in effect is that Henry M. G. Dahler, husband of plaintiff, had reconveyed the land in controversy to the Market & S.tanyan streets & Golden Gate Park Land & Improvement Company, and that by mesne conveyance from

[162]

the latter title to this property vested in appellant Carrie E. Bridge. Henry M. G. Dabler testified that he had never made any deed of this property to the Market & Stanyan streets & Golden Gate Park Land & Improvement Company, The point in controversy was whether in fact such a deed had been made- by him subsequent to his taking the deed from the corporation and prior to the conveyance by him to his wife. Appellants sought to show by the record that such conveyance had been made and it was conceded that if the evidence offered by the appellants to this end were admissible it would show that the record title to the property stood in appellants.

“To this end appellants showed that there was preserved from the conflagration of April 18, 1906, a general index book, an official record of the recorder’s office, showing a deed from H. M. G. Dabler and wife to the Market & Stanyan streets & Golden Gate Park Land & Improvement Company of October 26, 1894. The index, however, did not contain any description of the property affected by the deed. Harry Strehl was then called and testified that he was a searcher of records, that each day’s duty was to abbreviate the documents recorded in the recorder’s office and to furnish this breviate to Mr. Edwards, publisher of a paper known as ' Edwards Abstracts from Records, ’ and that he did so furnish correct breviates to Edwards for the latter’s publication. He did not know whether the publications were or were not correct copies of the notes which he furnished, but did know that his notes or breviates were correct. Mr. Edwards, in turn, secretary and manager of the Edwards Publishing Company, testified to the reception of these breviates from Mr. Strehl and the publication of them by this company, that he read the proof in each instance and saw that the publication was a correct reproduction of the notes furnished by Mr. Strehl. He was then asked, referring to his publication, ‘whether or not on October 25, 1894, a deed was recorded in the office of the recorder of the city and' county of San Fram cisco from H. M. G. Dahler and his wife to the Market