Oatman v. Niemeyer
THE COURT.
On rehearing in bank, we adopt the statement of facts as set forth in the department opinion:
“This is an appeal from the judgment of the trial court• in favor of the plaintiff granting reformation of an instrument purporting to be a deed, by inserting therein a description of certain real property which was owned by the deceased, but which, it was claimed, was omitted by mistake from said instrument, and also quieting plaintiff’s title to the real property after said purported deed had been reformed. The appeal was taken on the judgment roll alone.
“ The facts found by the court show: That on the 4th day of June, 1922, in the city of Wheatland, county of Yuba, state of California, one A. N. Garrison employed plaintiff to care for him, nurse him, and keep house for him at his residence in said city of Wheatland, county of Yuba,
[425]
state of California, which service was to be continuous to the date of his death; that said A. N. Garrison was of the age of eighty years or thereabouts, at said time. In consideration of such service, said Garrison promised and agreed to and with plaintiff that he would give her all his property, both real and personal, on hand at the time of his death. In pursuance of such agreement plaintiff, on said 4th day of ‘June, 1922, began such service and continued to and did render all of such service to be given by her to said A. N. Garrison to the date of his death, to-wit: on the 18th day of October, 1926. On the 4th day of October, 1926, the said A. N. Garrison informed plaintiff that he wished to comply with his said agreement and execute the necessary papers giving her his property and sent for one S. D. Hicks, who was then and there and for some time previous had been a justice of the peace of the territory in which the said city of Wheatland was situated; that thereupon the said S. D. Hicks went to the residence of said A. N. Garrison in said city of Wheatland and the said A. N. Garrison then and there instructed the said S. D. Hicks to draw the necessary papers which would invest plaintiff with all of his property and thereupon the said S. D. Hicks prepared a deed and the same was signed and executed by the said A. N. Garrison and the said A. N. Garrison requested said S. D. Hicks and one Ira Eowland to sign as witnesses thereto; that after the signing and witnessing of said deed .the same was then and there by the said A. N. Garrison delivered to said plaintiff Alice Lee Oatman. The deed so signed and witnessed is set out in the findings. It purports to grant, bargain and sell to the plaintiff, her heirs and assigns forever, ‘ all the certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the city of Wheatland, County of Yuba, State of California, and bounded and particularly described as follows, to-wit:’ No description of the property sought to be conveyed appears in the deed. The trial court found that the real property intended to be conveyed was the only real property owned by said A. N. Garrison and the same constituted one compact piece or tract of land which was fenced and on which was a dwelling house where the said A. N. Garrison resided and where the plaintiff rendered such services. • The description of the property is inserted in the findings of the court.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)