Home/California Court of Appeal/Everett v. Bosch

Everett v. Bosch

241 Cal. App. 2d 648, 50 Cal. Rptr. 813, 1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1282
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedApril 22, 1966
DocketCiv. 29765
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 241 Cal. App. 2d 648 (Everett v. Bosch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Everett v. Bosch, 241 Cal. App. 2d 648, 50 Cal. Rptr. 813, 1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1282 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

LILLIE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment quieting title to certain property in the Hollywood section of Los Angeles, specifically a strip of land immediately southwest of La Brea and Hollywood Boulevard which formerly was used by the Pacific Electric Railway for railroad purposes following a condemnation proceeding in 1899 giving that company's predecessor a right-of-way thereover. Such right-of-way or easement (35 feet in width) having been abandoned in 1954 or 1955, the trial court was called upon to determine whether respondents owned the underlying fee to the strip of property by reason of certain deeds from the original owner to their predecessors in interest. Having found that they did and having further determined that respondents were not guilty of laches in asserting their claims, the trial court’s conclusions in such regard are challenged by the present proceeding. There are also subsidiary contentions which will be discussed hereinafter. 1

The common predecessor of all parties to this litigation was one Lizzie T. Hay. 1 As far back as 1893 she was the owner of more than 100 acres which were subdivided in that year as the Formosa Tract and later subdivided (in 1906) as the J. F. Grass Tract. Appellant Everett is the present owner of Lot 12 in said tract; appellants Thomson and Hansel are the owners *651 of Lot 11. As will be seen from a sketch of the area reproduced herein, both such lots border on the northerly limits of the abandoned right-of-way. ¡Respondents, on the other hand, own the northerly portions of Lots 30 and 31 in the Michigan Tract; as will likewise be noted from the accompanying sketch, such lots lie immediately south of the right-of-way save for the intervening alley known as Marshfield Way.

In 1902, following the acquisition of the easement by the railway company, Mrs. Hay conveyed the area north of such right-of-way to one See who later subdivided it in 1906 as the J. F. Grass Tract, supra. In this regard the trial court made a finding that by such conveyance the grantor intended to, and did, transfer to See, as grantee, “the property within the

*652 'northwesterly one-half of said easement and right of way” but subject thereto. (Appellants, as successors in interest of See, were found to be the owners in fee of the one-half of said abandoned easement.) Thereafter, in 1904, Mrs. Hay conveyed what is now known as Lot 31 of the Michigan Tract to one ■Bohrer, one of respondents’ predecessors in interest. Although the area thus conveyed was described by metes and bounds which went along the southerly line of the right-of-way, there was the further description that “said portion [was] to be hereinafter known as Lot 31 Michigan Tract.” (While surveyed in May of 1904, the plat of the Michigan Tract was not actually recorded until October of 1905.) The remaining lot in suit, Lot 30, was acquired by respondents as successors in interest of one Louise Hatch to whom it was conveyed by Mrs. ■ Hay in August of 1905. The deed to Hatch likewise described the property by metes and bounds which, unlike the situation with respect to Lot 31, went to a point 10 feet southerly of the right-of-way. .Two months later, when the plat of the Michigan Tract was recorded, the 10-foot alley between the northerly line described in the Hatch deed and the southerly boundary of the right-of-way became Marshfield Way.

*651 ak1FxvCbWjJU

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Nayereh Sahrapour v. LesRon, LLC and Shaw Centre, LLC
119 A.3d 704 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2015)
Liddy v. Lamone
919 A.2d 1276 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2007)
Gray v. Jenerette
52 Va. Cir. 138 (King George County Circuit Court, 2000)
Besneatte v. Gourdin
16 Cal. App. 4th 1277 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
Safwenberg v. Marquez
50 Cal. App. 3d 301 (California Court of Appeal, 1975)
Hixson v. Jones
253 Cal. App. 2d 860 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 Cal. App. 2d 648, 50 Cal. Rptr. 813, 1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-bosch-calctapp-1966.