Oree v. Gage

California Court of Appeal

Oree v. Gage

175 P. 799, 38 Cal. App. 212, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 228

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedSeptember 17, 1918

DocketCiv. No. 2445.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 175 P. 799 (Oree v. Gage) 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

Oree v. Gage, 175 P. 799, 38 Cal. App. 212, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 228 (Cal. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

STURTEVANT, J., pro tem.

This is an action to quiet title. The plaintiff had judgment in the trial court and the defendant, Gage, has appealed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On June 14, 1895, J. Downing deeded to Clara Gage. On December 21, 1895, Clara Gage deeded to these plaintiffs. The judgment of the trial court was correct if the property *213 was, not community property and was not affected by a purported declaration of homestead.

The plaintiffs introduced evidence that they were the daughters of Clara Gage by a former marriage; that their mother took and held the property in trust for them; that the purchase price was paid out of the earnings of the daughters, and that the defendant, stepfather, did not contribute anything to the payments, but, during the major portion of the period during which the purchase price was being paid, he was living separate and apart from the mother. The trial court evidently believed this testimony and properly held that Clara Gage merely held the property in trust for her daughters. On trust property she could not legally declare a homestead. (Osborne v. Strachan, 32 Kan. 52, [3 Pac. 767] ; Rice v. Rice, 108 Ill. 199; Gordon v. English, 3 Lea (Tenn.), 640; Shepherd v. White, 11 Tex. 346; Bier v. Leisle, 172 Cal. 432, 435, [156 Pac. 870].)

It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Lennon, P. J., and Beasly, J., pro tem., concurred.

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

STURTEVANT, J., pro tem.

This is an action to quiet title. The plaintiff had judgment in the trial court and the defendant, Gage, has appealed under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On June 14, 1895, J. Downing deeded to Clara Gage. On December 21, 1895, Clara Gage deeded to these plaintiffs. The judgment of the trial court was correct if the property *213 was, not community property and was not affected by a purported declaration of homestead.

The plaintiffs introduced evidence that they were the daughters of Clara Gage by a former marriage; that their mother took and held the property in trust for them; that the purchase price was paid out of the earnings of the daughters, and that the defendant, stepfather, did not contribute anything to the payments, but, during the major portion of the period during which the purchase price was being paid, he was living separate and apart from the mother. The trial court evidently believed this testimony and properly held that Clara Gage merely held the property in trust for her daughters. On trust property she could not legally declare a homestead. (Osborne v. Strachan, 32 Kan. 52, [3 Pac. 767] ; Rice v. Rice, 108 Ill. 199; Gordon v. English, 3 Lea (Tenn.), 640; Shepherd v. White, 11 Tex. 346; Bier v. Leisle, 172 Cal. 432, 435, [156 Pac. 870].)

It follows that the judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Lennon, P. J., and Beasly, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 P. 799, 38 Cal. App. 212, 1918 Cal. App. LEXIS 228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oree-v-gage-calctapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack