Leonard v. Jaffray

MELVIN, J.

Plaintiff sued to quiet title to the following described real property in the city of Los Angeles: “Lot 4, in Block ‘PI,’ of G-lassell’s Subdivision of part of Lots 3, 6 and 7, in Block 39, Hancock’s Survey as per map thereof on file in Book 6, page 138, of Miscellaneous! Records, in the office of the County Recorder of said county.” It was alleged that plaintiff was “the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of” the land. Defendant, Jaffray, answered, setting up his

[373]

own possession and title and also filed’ a cross-complaint to which plaintiff made answer. By his cross-complaint J. R. Jaffray asked to have his title to the property quieted as against Leonard’s claims. The cause was tried partly upon stipulation and partly upon testimony and documentary proof. Judgment was in favor of plaintiff. From said judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial defendant and cross-complainant appeals. Some of the facts stipulated were that “R. N. Withnell was formerly the owner of said lot, and he transferred the title to his daughter, Grace B. Leonard, who died a widow, leaving no will, and leaving Richard W. Leonard her son and only heir at law, who is now the administrator of her estate”; that the city taxes upon the said lot for the year 1903 have never been paid except by way of sale of the lot; and that “certain proceedings were had in 1904 for the purpose of selling said lot to said city for nonpayment of said taxes of 1903, and in 1909 a deed was made to the city under such proceedings, there having been no redemption or repurchase of said lot from said city by anyone.” The purported deeds to the city and from the city to James R. Jaffray were stipulated into the record by copies, plaintiff admitting their execution but reserving the right to make all legal objections to them. The final paragraph of the stipulation is as follows:

“The right, title and interest of said James R. Jaffray in and to said lot is derived and deraighed through the several proceedings above mentioned and should it be made to appear that an essential element of such proceedings is wanting, and that the defect is incurable, then and in that case his title fails and he has no other interest in the lot t_an the amount he paid, provided such payment is found to be a legal claim against the same, and in case there has been a compliance with law in such proceedings, then and in that case, all the light, title and interest of Richard W. Leonard or those through whom he claims, as administrator or in person, has been wholly divested and terminated, including all rights of redemption or repurchase from the city.”