gno.law

Capron v. Van Horn

California Court of Appeal · Docket No. 476. · 1931-06-05 · Published · 300 P. 150 · 114 Cal. App. 630 · 1931 Cal. App. LEXIS 825

IRENE ELIZABETH CAPRON, as Administratrix, Etc., Appellant, v. ERWIN RAY VAN HORN, Respondent

Proceeding
appeal from a judgment
Trial court
Superior Court of Imperial County
Trial judge
A.C. Finney
Outcome
affirmed — Affirmed.
Area
civil
Panel
Marks (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Marks

MARKS, J.

This is an action to quiet title to lots 5 and 6 and the east half of the southwest quarter of section 18 in township 11 south, range 14 east, San Bernardino base and meridian, in Imperial County, California.

The original complaint was filed by Sarah F. Donley on February 1, 1917. She died on March 12, 1923, and appel *631 lant was substituted in her place and stead as plaintiff in the action. Mrs. Donley claimed title to the above described and other lands, under a United States patent issued to her on August 9, 1916.

This case has been before the Appellate and Supreme Courts of this state before.

(Donley v. Van Horn, 49 Cal. App. 383 [193 Pac. 514] ;

Capron v. Van Horn, 201 Cal. 486 [258 Pac. 77].) A clear statement of the facts involved in this ease, and a clear discussion of the law of the case may be found in these decisions. No good purpose could be served by repeating them here.

An examination of the record before us shows no facts not thoroughly considered' in one or both of the former decisions. This being so, these decisions become the law of the ease and are controlling here.

(Deacon v. Bryans, 212 Cal. 87 [298 Pac. 30];

Coulter v. Howard, 113 Cal. App. 208 [298 Pac. 140].) The two former decisions in the instant case resolved all the questions here presented adversely to the contentions of appellant.

Judgment affirmed.

Barnard, P. J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing of this cause was denied by the District Court of Appeal on July 1, 1931, and a petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 3, 1931.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by