Shanahan v. Crampton

Vanclief, C. This is an action founded upon section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to quiet plaintiff’s alleged title to a block of land in the city of Sacramento.

[11]The plaintiff brings this appeal from a judgment of nonsuit against him, rendered upon the evidence on which he rested his case.

The substance of the complaint is, that the plaintiff is, and for long time has been, the owner of the land in question, and that the defendants, without any right or title whatever, claim and assert an interest therein adverse to the plaintiff. Prayer that the adverse claims of defendants may be determined, that plaintiff be adjudged to be the exclusive owner of the land, etc. The complaint was not verified.

The separate answers of the defendants each specifically denies the alleged ownership of the plaintiff, and claims an interest in a portion of the land, derived from Coleman and Bates through a conveyance from Julia K. Shanahan, the wife of the plaintiff; and further alleges that the plaintiff is estopped from, denying defendants’ title, and especially sets forth the grounds of the alleged estoppel.

At the commencement of the trial, it was admitted by all the parties that Coleman and Bates were the owners of the land on February 27, 1884.

The plaintiff then put in evidence the following deed from Coleman and Bates to plaintiff’s wife: —

“ We, William P. Coleman and George E. Bates, of the county of Sacramento, state of California, grant to Julia K. Shanahan, of the same place, as her separate property and estate, all that real property situate in the city of Sacramento, state of California, and designated as lots Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, in square bounded by S and T, and Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth streets (29th and 30th streets).

“ City taxes now due to be paid by the grantee.

“ Consideration, four hundred dollars.

“ Witness our hands this twenty-seventh day of February, 1884.

[Seal] ° “ Geo. E. Bates.