Bath v. Valdez

MYRICK, J. Action to quiet title. The court below decreed that plaintiff was the owner of an undivided one-half of the premises, and that certain of the defendants were the owners of the other undivided one-half—one-twelfth each; and that plaintiff had not acquired the interest of the defendants by adverse possession. We are of opinion that the findings are supported by evidence; therefore, we look to the findings and the conclusions of law and decree to determine if any error was committed by the court in making the decree.

In 1862 Julian Valdez had title to the premises as the common property of himself and his wife, Manuela. In 1863 Julian Valdez died intestate, leaving him surviving Manuela, his widow, and his mother, and several brothers and sisters, as his heirs. In April of that year the widow obtained letters of administration. In 1865 Manuela intermarried with one Chavez, and thereafter, in the same year, she and her then husband executed a deed of the premises to one Peppers, by which they remised, released and quitclaimed “all that lot,” describing a tract including the premises in controversy. Under this deed Peppers took and retained possession until, in July, 1872, she executed a grant, bargain and sale deed to Burrows, and from Burrows the title comes, by mesne conveyance of grant, bargain and sale, to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s grantors were respectively in the undisturbed possession of the premises during the periods while they had title; they placed improvements on the property, received the rents, and had the entire enjoyment thereof. Plaintiff purchased in January, 1882, and this suit was commenced in October, 1882. The court also found:

“That the said plaintiff, his grantors, ancestors and predecessors, from the 4th of October, 1865, have received all the rents, issues and profits of the premises, paid all taxes that have been imposed thereon, and occupied the same, and that neither the said plaintiff nor his grantors or ancestors or predecessors, or any of them, ever gave any notice, actual or other[500]wise, to the defendants, or any of them, that he or they or any of them intended to or did or were claiming and holding the said premises or any part thereof, adverse to the said Jose E., Brigido, Vincente, Juan, Felipe, and Maria de Los Angeles Valdez and Guadalupe V. de Bocha or either or any of them; nor was the said plaintiff, or the said Burrows or Boques or the said Dassaud, or the said Goodwin, or any or either of them, ever heard to make or assert any claim to the land in controversy adverse to the said defendants Valdez or Bocha, or any of them, or under whom they claim, prior to the commencement of this action.”