The record-union., 1891-01-31
UNDERWOOD, Respondent,)

For respondent, C. C. Stephens.
DEPARTMENT ONE.
UNDERWOOD, Respondent)
VS.. No. 1865
UNDERWOOD, Appellant.
This is an action to quiet title to several par
GELS of land situate in the city of Los Angeles.
\ lis pende',s was filed by plaintiff at the time
the action was commenced. The defendant
filed her verified answer denying that plaintiff
had any'right, title or interest in any of the
lots described in the complaint. After this
answer was filed the defendant sold and con-
veyed to the respondents, John S. Underwood,
Mary E. Regain and Samuel A. Moore all of
the lots described in the complaint. except
slot l3 in block A" Thereafter. the attorney
of defendant having died, she employed an
other attorney, who, after being informed by
her of all the facts, filed an amended and I'M
verified answer, disclaiming on the part of the
defendant any interest in any of the property
described in the complaint except said lot 8.
The court found that defendant was the
owner of said lot 13 in block A, and that
plaintiff was the owner of the other lots in con-
troyersy, and judgment was entered accord
ingly on April Is, 1889. On July 22, 1889,
the defendant moved the court to set aside the
judgment and for permission to amend her
amended answer by striking out said dis
claimer, on the ground that the amended
answer containing the disclaimer had been
filed through inadvertence and mistake In
support of her application she filed an affi-
davit, setting forth that upon the advice of
her first attorney she had sold the property
described in the disclaimer) to said Under
wood, Regain and Moore, in good faith and for
q valuable consideration; that upon the
death of her attorney she had EN-
ployed another counsel, and the latter, after
being informed of all the facts filed an amended
answer containing the disclaimer, 'he
believing and understanding that said con-
veyances We're made prior to the commence
ment OF this actiOn;" that "Said disclaimer
was an inadyertence and a mistake of fact:
that judgment was entered against her by
reason OF said mistake, and that she had no
notice of the state of pleadings until July 10,
1889, when writ of assistance was served on
one of her grantees" Afidavits were filed by
John S. Underwood and Mary E. Regain alleg-
ing that the facts set forth in defendants affi-
davit were true, and asking that they might
be allowed to come in and defend against the
claim of plaintiff. The attorney who filed the
amended answer made an affidavit showing
that when he drew it he understood that the
property described in the disclaimer had been
conveyed by defendant before the suit was
commenced.
A counter affidavit was filed by Horace Bell
showing that he had taken q portion of the
property described in the disclaimer from the
plaintiff for valuable consideration subse-
quent to the Judgment, without notice of
any transfer by defendant, and after a search
of the record which failed to disclose any con-
yeyance from defendant. and after the attor-
ney for defendant had informed him that he
knew of nothing that would invalidate the
conveyance.
The court granted the motion to set aside the
judgment, and from its order the plaintiff has
appealed.
The showing made on motion to set aside
the judgment is very weak one, but we are
always unwilling TO interfere with the decis-
ion of the court below in matters of this kind
The attorney for the defendant doubtless
acted in good faith, and as he supposed for the
best interest of his,client, but under mistake
of fact as to the time when defendant had
parted with her interest in the lots. We can
not say, under all the circumstances, that the
court betow abused its discretion.
The order appealed from is therefore af-
firmed, PATERSON, j.
We concur.
GARoUTTE, J.,
HARRISON, j.