Ybarra v. Sylvany

California Supreme Court Jan 14, 1893 No. No. 19,102Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff's title was properly quieted because the defendant's claim of adverse possession failed against a minor, and the defendant waived any objection to the plaintiff's capacity to sue or claims for reimbursement.

Issues

Whether findings of ownership and the statute of limitations were findings of ultimate fact or conclusions of law.
Whether the defendant waived the objection regarding the plaintiff's legal capacity to sue.
Whether the plaintiff was required to reimburse the defendant for the purchase price of the land as a condition to quieting title.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Finding No. 1 was to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of the described parcel of land. This was a finding of the ultimate fact, and not of a conclusion of law, and was sufficient”

“defendant failed to raise the objection that plaintiff had not legal capacity to sue, by demurrer or answer, and it was therefore waived.”

“No claim for repayment of any sum of money is set up in the answer or cross-complaint, and it nowhere appears in the record that any sum was ever paid by the defendant for the land.”

Synopsis

Quieting Title—Finding of Fact or of Law.—In an action to quiet title, a finding that plaintiff is the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of the described parcel of land is a finding of an ultimate fact, and not a conclusion of law.

Quieting Title—Pleading Bar to Action.—Where defendant pleads that the action is barred by certain specified sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, a finding that plaintiff, at the time of commencing the action, was under the age of twenty-three years, and his cause of action is not barred by either of the sections pleaded, is sufficiently specific.

Quieting Title—Capacity of Plaintiff—Findings.—Where defendant does not raise the objection that plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue, a finding that plaintiff was under twenty-three years of age at the time of commencing the action is not objectionable on the ground that he may have been under twenty-one years of age, and is sufficient.

Quieting Title—Repayment of Money Paid Under Void Deed.— Where defendant claims under a void guardian’s deed, and sets up no claim for repayment of money paid, and it does not appear that he paid any for the land, a judgment quieting the title in plaintiff is not erroneous, though no tender of repayment is made.

BELCHER, C. This is an action to quiet the plaintiff’s title to a parcel of land in the city of Los Angeles, and the complaint is in the usual form. The defendant, by his answer, denied all the averments of the complaint; denied that he had no right, title, or interest in or to the land; and alleged that he was the owner thereof in fee simple, and was such owner and entitled to the possession of the land when the action was commenced; alleged that he had been in the quiet and peaceable possession of the premises described, holding and claiming the same adversely to the plaintiff and all other persons, for more than five years before the commencement of the action, and that the plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the provisions of sections 1806 and 318 and 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He then set out the facts in a cross-complaint and asked that his title be quieted as against the plaintiff. After trial the court below found that the plaintiff “is now, and for a long time hitherto has been, the [751]owner in fee and entitled to the possession of” the parcel of land described in the complaint; that the defendant claims an interest in and to the said land, but his claim is without right, and he has no right, title, or interest therein, or in any part thereof; that the defendant was in the quiet and peaceable possession of the premises described, and claiming the same adversely to the plaintiff and all other persons, for more than five years before the commencement of the suit, but during all that 'time the plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession thereof; that, at the time defendant entered upon said premises, plaintiff was a minor, and defendant entered thereon “under a pretended purchase thereof at an irregular and erroneous and insufficient and void guardianship sale, made in the matter of the estate and guardianship of this plaintiff, and this defendant has never had any title to the said premises or any part thereof, save such title as he claimed to have under the said worthless and void guardianship deed of conveyance”; that plaintiff at the time of commencing the action was under the age of twenty-three years; and that his cause of action was not barred by either of the sections of the code pleaded in bar thereof. Judgment was accordingly entered quieting the plaintiff’s title, in accordance with the prayer of his complaint. Defendant moved for a new trial, which was denied, and then appealed from the judgment and order. No bill of exceptions or statement of the case is brought up in the transcript, and therefore only such questions can be considered as arise upon the judgment-roll.

Ybarra v. Sylvany

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief