Forrester v. City of Los Angeles

SCOTT (R. H.), J. pro tem. Plaintiff appeals from an adverse judgment in a suit to quiet title.

By her amended complaint plaintiff claims to be the owner of and seeks to quiet title to a triangular piece of property used by defendant city for park purposes as a part of Elysian Park. She describes it as “that portion of the Forrester Tract (as per map recorded in Book 78, at page 30 of Miscellaneous Records of Los Angeles County, California), lying between the northwesterly prolongation of the northeasterly line of Bishop’s Road extending northwesterly from Savoy Street and the northeasterly line of the lands deeded to Manuel Requena by the City of Los Angeles, a municipal corporation, as per deed recorded in Boob 33 at page 146 of Deeds, records of Los Angeles County, California.” There had been a prior action brought by this defendant city against this plaintiff and Cal Forrester, her husband. As shown by plaintiff’s brief in this case, it appears that the city in 1909 had filed suit against the Forresters to quiet title to land known as the Forrester Tract, and in 1914 the city recovered judgment which became final. That was Los Angeles Superior Court case No. 67601, pursuant to which a writ of assistance was issued (City of Los Angeles v. Forrester, 12 Cal. App. (2d) 146 [55 Pac. (2d) 277]), and the city was put into possession of the land. Plaintiff bases her claim in this suit on the theory (1) that at the time of the prior suit to quiet title the Forresters had not in fact been the owners of the entire Forrester Tract, but (2) that [31]a certain triangular piece of that tract, which is the subject of this suit, was then owned not by the Forresters but by the Roman Catholic Bishop, who was not a party to the action in 1909, and the triangular piece was not affected by the judgment in 1914 in that case; (3) that in 1919 the Bishop executed and delivered to this plaintiff a quitclaim deed to the triangular property. This had been part of an old cemetery which in 1857 defendant city had deeded to one Manuel Requena, who in turn deeded it to the Roman Catholic Bishop who was the predecessor in interest of the Bishop from whom plaintiff received the quitclaim deed.

The legal description of the entire Forrester Tract was included in the judgment in 1914. It is apparent from the record that if plaintiff has any right to judgment in this case it is because there was a piece of land embraced within the land described in the 1914- judgment which was part of the Forrester Tract but which neither she nor her husband owned at that time; because if she or her husband owned the entire Forrester Tract at that time they cannot now hope for a favorable judgment.