Miller v. Boswell

FOURT, J. This is an appeal on the judgment roll from a decree wherein the court refused to quiet the title to a parcel of real property.

[509]The plaintiff brought the action to quiet his title to, and determine the adverse interests if any in four parcels of real property in Los Angeles County. The defendant, Catherine A. McKenna, filed an answer wherein she denied substantially all of the plaintiff’s claims; however, in such answer she did not claim any title for herself.

The court, after a trial, found the title (insofar as Parcels 1, 2 and 3 were concerned) to be in the plaintiff and ordered cancellation of certain special assessment liens. As to the fourth parcel, the court found:

“That on or about April 5, 1922, the City Treasurer of the City of Los Angeles, following the foreclosure of Street Improvement Bond No. 1657, Series 1, executed and delivered to Samuel M. Garroway, a Treasurer’s Deed under the 1893 Street Improvement Bond Act, (Stats. 1893, p. 33) covering the following described real property in the City of Los Angeles, State of California, to wit:

“Parcel 4: The northeasterly 30 feet of Lot 5 in Block ‘I’ of the Knob Hill Tract, in the city of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in book 10 page 97 of Miscellaneous Records.

“That the interest of said Samuel M. Garroway in and to said real property was conveyed to plaintiff on June 23, 1953, and is now owned by plaintiff. That defendant Catherine A. McKenna has not been in the open and adverse possession of said real property for any period of five years continuously, prior to the commencement of this action. That since June 23, 1953, plaintiff has occupied said i?ea4 property fea parking purposes and has Improved the same with black tep paving and M K einee said date has been in the exclusive possession t-horcof7 and has paid all taxes levied and assessed against the same. ’ ’

The court then, as a conclusion of law therefrom set forth:

“That title to the real property described in paragraph IV of the foregoing Findings has not been established on behalf of any party to this action and as to said real property judgment shall not be rendered for or against any party to this action.”

Judgment was entered and no mention was made of any disposition as to Parcel Number 4. A motion was made by the plaintiff to vacate the judgment so entered, and to make a different judgment as to Parcel Number 4 upon the ground that the conclusion of law was erroneous and not consistent