Frericks v. Sorensen
| Citation | 113 Cal.App.2d 759,248 P.2d 949 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 21 October 1952 |
| Parties | FRERICKS et al. v. SORENSEN et al. Civ. 19118. |
George L. Hampton, Van Nuys, for appellant Alma Sorensen.
Richard C. Fildew, Los Angeles, for respondents.
The property in controversy in this action is a parcel of land 50.5 feet by 66 feet, being a part of lot 111, tract 1000 in the county of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs claimed title by reason of facts to be hereinafter related and also asserted a prescriptive title. They prevailed and defendants appeal.
Lot 111 is bounded on the north by Albers Street, on the west by Sunnyslope Avenue, and on the south by Chandler Boulevard, although the south 50.5 feet are included in the Boulevard. Inclusive of this 50.5 feet, lot 111 is 645.83 feet in length.
The court found the following facts: (1) On February 29, 1940, Lillian B. Thatcher was the owner of the west 66 feet of lot 111; (2) on that date she executed a deed conveying to Harry W. Ferguson and wife the south 292 feet of the west 66 feet of lot 111; the Fergusons entered into possession of 292 feet measured from the north line of Chandler Boulevard and continued in possession until they sold the property to Grey and wife, March 26, 1942; (3) at the time the Greys purchased there was a shed 54 feet by 16 feet, located within and at the north end of the 292 feet; immediately north of the shed was a stake and a fence which extended across the lot north of the shed. The stake and fence were 342.5 feet north of the south line of lot 111; (4) the Greys later sold to Kasparian and wife in 1946, and in 1948 the Kasparians sold to plaintiffs. The several deeds described the parcel as the south 292 feet of lot 111. In February, 1944, Lillian B. Thatcher conveyed to defendants Sorensen the west 66 feet of lot 111, excepting the south 292 feet thereof.
Plaintiffs and their predecessors, as well as Thatcher and wife and Sorensen and wife, overlooked the fact that the south 50.5 feet of the lot had been taken for street purposes. Everyone supposed that the south 292 feet of the lot extended to a point just north of the shed. It was not until the spring of 1950, after examining tax bills, that the Sorensens laid claim to the disputed 50.5 feet.
When the Greys purchased from Ferguson, March 26, 1942, Mr. Thatcher, acting as agent for his wife, represented to Grey that the Ferguson's land extended just north of the shed to a fence and to the stake which he pointed out to Ferguson and Grey. The Greys acted upon this representation in making their purchase. The court also found that Ferguson and Grey were uncertain as to the north boundary of the property to be conveyed, that a controversy arose concerning the same and that Mrs. Thatcher, acting through her husband as her agent, agreed with Ferguson and Grey that the north boundary was a line just north of the shed. The Greys entered into possession of the land and the shed. The court found that Grey 'did make considerable and expensive improvements upon the shed and other portions of the 50.5 strip.' He spent $200 or $300 in improvements of the shed, put up chicken batteries and rabbit hutches, repaired a lath house and pruned trees on the 50.5 foot strip, all without objection on the part of the Thatchers or the Sorensens. Upon a second occasion in March, 1942, when Mr. Thatcher pointed out the boundary to Ferguson and Grey, Mrs. Thatcher agreed with the latter that the north boundary of the land was the line of the fence just north of the shed. It was also found that the Sorensens witnessed the occupancy of the strip by the Kasparians and acquiesced in their fencing the strip and making extensive improvements, and they also observed the occupancy by plaintiffs and permitted them to make improvements thereon, all without any objection until the spring of 1950.
When Grey purchased he had a right to rely upon the representations of the Thatchers,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paurley v. Harris
...for Use and Benefit of Benton v. Crosser, 202 Okl. 582, 216 P.2d 583; Nebel v. Guyer, 99 Cal.App.2d 30, 221 P.2d 337; Frericks v. Sorensen, 113 Cal.App.2d 759, 248 P.2d 949; Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Minnette, 115 Cal.App.2d 642, 252 P.2d 642; Appeal of Moore, 173 Kan. 820, 252 P.2d 875......
-
City of Long Beach v. Mansell
...to have such knowledge. (See Grants Pass Land and Water Company v. Brown (1914) 168 Cal. 456, 462, 143 P. 754; Frericks v. Sorensen (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 759, 248 P.2d 949; cf. Staniford v. Trombly (1919) 181 Cal. 372, 378, 186 P. 599.)...
-
Gilardi v. Hallam
...supra, 51 Cal.App.3d 866, 878, 124 Cal.Rptr. 590; Drew v. Mumford (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 271, 276, 325 P.2d 240; Frericks v. Sorensen (1952) 113 Cal.App.2d 759, 762, 248 P.2d 949.) Under the stipulated facts, we must uphold the trial court's finding that defendants and their predecessors did......
-
Roman v. Ries
...court could be affirmed under the exception relating to estoppel.' (Emphasis added.) Similarly, the court in Frericks v. Sorensen, 113 Cal.App.2d 759, 761, 248 P.2d 949, 951, stated: 'The original understanding with Ferguson, the representation made to Grey and acquiescence in possession of......