Kroenert v. Zaslow

California Supreme Court

Kroenert v. Zaslow

176 P.2d 8, 29 Cal. 2d 878, 1946 Cal. LEXIS 322

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 30, 1946

DocketL. A. No. 19417

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 P.2d 8 (Kroenert v. Zaslow) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kroenert v. Zaslow, 176 P.2d 8, 29 Cal. 2d 878, 1946 Cal. LEXIS 322 (Cal. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

EDMONDS, J.

Plaintiff, Helene Kroenert, sued to quiet title to the real property which is involved in Zaslow v. Kroenert (ante, p. 541 [176 P.2d 1]). The trial court decided “that the deed to the State of California is illegal and void by reason of the overlevy of taxes ... in the total amount of eighty-three cents”, and “that the State . . . could convey to the plaintiff, Helene Kroenert, no greater title than it possessed and by reason thereof the title conveyed by said State to the plaintiff is illegal and void.” However, in the companion case it was held that the error in assessment did not invalidate the deed to Mrs. Kroenert and, upon the vesting of title in her, she and Zaslow became owners of the property as tenants in common. The reasons there stated require the same determination in the present case.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed with directions to the superior court to enter judgment in favor of Helene Kroenert in accordance with the conclusions stated in Zaslow v. Kroenert.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 27, 1947.

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

EDMONDS, J.

Plaintiff, Helene Kroenert, sued to quiet title to the real property which is involved in Zaslow v. Kroenert (ante, p. 541 [176 P.2d 1]). The trial court decided “that the deed to the State of California is illegal and void by reason of the overlevy of taxes ... in the total amount of eighty-three cents”, and “that the State . . . could convey to the plaintiff, Helene Kroenert, no greater title than it possessed and by reason thereof the title conveyed by said State to the plaintiff is illegal and void.” However, in the companion case it was held that the error in assessment did not invalidate the deed to Mrs. Kroenert and, upon the vesting of title in her, she and Zaslow became owners of the property as tenants in common. The reasons there stated require the same determination in the present case.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed with directions to the superior court to enter judgment in favor of Helene Kroenert in accordance with the conclusions stated in Zaslow v. Kroenert.

Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Carter, J., Traynor, J., Schauer, J., and Spence, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied January 27, 1947.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 P.2d 8, 29 Cal. 2d 878, 1946 Cal. LEXIS 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kroenert-v-zaslow-cal-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack