Reitz v. Wollwert

[408]

PRESTON, J.

This appeal by defendant from judgment .for plaintiff is without merit and may be disposed of with brevity.

Plaintiff, John Reitz, and one Mary Wilmes, both in the neighborhood of eighty years of age, are brother and sister. Defendant Katharine Wollwert is the daughter of Mary Wilmes and her husband is co-defendant. This cause arises from a family, dispute respecting certain apartment house property at Willows, title to which has been thoroughly litigated in the recent case of

Wilmes

v.

Reitz

wherein the judgment for defendant (plaintiff here) has now been affirmed by this court

(Wilmes

v.

Reitz,

215 Cal. 495 [11 Pac. (2d) 379]).

On February 9, 1931, plaintiff instituted this action, alleging that he owned said property; that in 1922 he brought his sister from the east to reside with him; that thereafter he eared for her and she assisted him in the operation of said apartment house and he placed the title thereto in her name to be held in trust for him; that their relations were happy; that, however, in 1930 defendants visited Willows and soon thereafter defendant daughter attempted to obtain the title to said property, whereupon, at the request of plaintiff, his sister reeonveyed it to him, despite all efforts on the part of defendants to dissuade her from so doing; that thereafter defendant daughter, having secured the appointment of herself as guardian

ad litem

because of the alleged incompetency of her mother, brought the action above referred to

(Wilmes

v.

Reitz,

supra), for the purpose of having said reconveyance set aside upon grounds of fraud; that judgment in said action w^s rendered for defendant (plaintiff here); that from the time of commencement thereof, these defendants, without plaintiff’s consent and against his will, resided in said apartment house, paying no rent, and prevented him from having any social intercourse with his sister; that defendant daughter interfered with the tenants and collected rentals from them and otherwise obstructed the free use of his property by plaintiff; that he demanded that defendants leave and account for rentals so collected by them, but they refused to do so; that plaintiff is a frail man, now eighty years of age, and unable to use sufficient force to eject defendants; that he feared the