Bond v. Aickley (1914) · DecisionDepot

Bond v. Aickley

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 3, 1914 No. S.F. No. 6066.Published

Before: Sloss

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that in a quiet title action between parties who cannot connect themselves to a paramount legal title, the party who proves prior possession through a chain of conveyances establishes a prima facie case of ownership that prevails unless the opposing party proves a superior title or adverse possession.

Issues

Whether a party who proves prior possession and a chain of conveyances is entitled to a decree quieting title against a defendant who fails to show a superior title or adverse possession.
Whether a deed description omitting a unit of measurement is sufficient to convey property when the intent is otherwise clear.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As between parties, neither of whom can connect himself with the legal title, the one who proves pri.or possession in himself or those through whom he claims, makes out a sufficient showing of ownership.”

“It has always been the law in this state, as well as elsewhere, that possession is prima, facie evidence of ownership.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SLOSS, J.

The plaintiff brought this action against W. C. Aickley and others to quiet her title to a parcel of land in

[162]

the city of Oakland. Pending the action, W. 0. Aickley executed a deed of the premises to Irving E. Smith. Thereafter Aickley died, and Ruth Aickley, as administratrix of his estate, was substituted in his stead as a party defendant. Smith also appeared as a defendant, and answered, denying plaintiff’s claim of ownership of the premises. Of the remaining defendants, some disclaimed, and the action was dismissed as to the others.

The court found that plaintiff was not the owner, or in the possession, or entitled to the possession of the premises; that at the commencement of the action W. C. Aickley was in the actual and peaceable possession thereof, and so continued until he conveyed such right of possession to Smith. The judgment decreed that the plaintiff should take nothing by this action, and that Smith have judgment against her for his costs.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying her motion for a new trial.

The principal contention is that the evidence does not support the finding that plaintiff was not the owner or entitled to the possession of the premises.

The property in controversy is a strip -about thirty-seven and one-half feet wide and one hundred and fifty feet in length. None of the parties undertook to deraign title from a paramount source, the record containing nothing to indicate the condition or ownership of the property prior to 1892. In that year W. C. Aickley, named as a party defendant in this action, took possession of the lot, which was then vacant and unimproved, constructed a fence around it, and erected on it a cottage, in which, for a time, he resided. On April 16, 1894, he executed a quitclaim deed of the property to Annie Bond. On February 5, 1895, Annie Bond executed a like deed to the plaintiff, Mary Bond. In August, 1909, after the commencement of this action, Aickley conveyed the premises to Irving E. Smith, the respondent. A

lis pendens

had then been recorded, and Smith could, therefore, occupy no stronger position, as against plaintiff, than his grantor had had.

Bond v. Aickley

AI Brief

Synopsis

SLOSS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief