Garvey v. Willis
Synopsis
Denial in Answeb.—If the complaint alleges that the plaintiff has been in the adverse possession of land for four years, and the answer, which is filed one month after the filing of the complaint, denies such adverse possession for a longer time than four months previous to the filing of the same, it is equivalent to a denial that the plaintiff has been in possession for a period exceeding three months prior to the filing of the complaint.
Answeb which Raises an Issue.—If, in an action to quiet title to real estate, the plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges that he is the owner of, and in possession of the property, and sets out a copy of the deed under which he claims, an answer which denies that he is the owner of, or in possession of the property, except as a tenant in common with the defendant, and alleges that the deed was not intended as a conveyance, but merely to enable the grantee to sell the property, and that the grantor subsequently conveyed to the defendant three-fifths undivided of the premises, contains a defense, and the plaintiff is not entitled to judgment on the pleadings.
By the Court : The plaintiff had judgment that he was owner of the whole of the premises in controversy, on the ground that nothing appeared in the answer which constituted a defense to the action. The defendants, by their answer, denied that the plaintiff was owner of the premises, or in possession thereof, except as tenant in common with the defendants; denied that the plaintiff had been in possession of the premises adversely to the claim of the defendants for a longer period of time than four months previous to the filing of the answer, which is equivalent to a denial that the plaintiff had been in such possession exceeding three months prior to the filing of the complaint. They alleged that the conveyance from Moore to Wolff & Folks was absolute; that Folks conveyed to the defendants an undivided interest of three-fifths in the premises; and they further allege that the purported reconveyance made by Wolff to Moore, through which they allege the plaintiff claims, was ■not in truth a reconveyance to Moore, and that this fact [621]was known to the plaintiff when he subsequently accepted a conveyance from Moore. Without stopping now to recite the contents of the answer further, it is sufficient to say that the plaintiff was not entitled to the judgment he obtained on the pleadings.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.
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)