The record-union., 1898-01-07
LIFE ESTATE NOT OWNERSHIP
PROPERTY THUS HELD CANNOT
BE CONVEYED.
Decision by Judge Hart in an Ac-
ton to Quiet Title to
Real Estate,

In the case Of Moody A. Scott and
others against Lena and Dominick
Schoenbachler, a suit to quiet title,
Judge Hart yesterday filed the follow
ing decision:
The plaintiffs have brought this ac-
ton to quiet title to certain property
situated in the City of Sacramento,
County of Sacramento, State of Cali
fornia, described as follows, to wit: Lot
number 3 in the square bounded by @
and r, and Sixteenth and Seventeenth
streets, alleged to be of the value Of
So 600.
The proceedings before the court at
this time are a demurrer to the cross
complaint, a motion to strike out the
cross complaint, and a motion for
judgment on the pleadings. The facts
as shown by the pleadings are as fol-
lows: On the 26th day of December
1874, one Hampton Whitaker, father of
one Mary e. Scott and grandfather of
the plaintiffs, by his deed duly execut-
ed and delivered, conveyed a life es-
tate TO said Mary f. Scott, with a re-
malnder in fee to the children of said
Mary e. Scott, the above-named plain
tiffs, in and to the property above de-
scrlbed. Said deed was acknowledged
before Notary Public and duly certi-
ned to, and was recorded on the Sth
day OF April, 1876, in Book A, of deeds
at page 39l, of the Records or the
County Recorder of said Sacramento
County.
On the 31st day of August, 1880, Mary
r. Scott executed deed to one Fred
erlck Singer. purporting to convey to
the said Singer the title in fee to the
property involved herein, said deed be-
ing duly recorded in the office of the
County Recorder of said County of
Sacramento on the 7th day of June,
1881. On the 9th day of June, 1881.
said Singer conveyed to Dominick
Schoenbachler all his right, title and in
terest to said property, the deed pur-
porting to carry with it the title in fee
thereto. Thereafter, on the 23d day Of
July, 1885, said Dominick Schoenbach-
Ter, one of the defendants herein. con-
veyed all his interest in said property
to Lena Schoenbachler. also a defend
ant, by deed purporting to vest in the
grantee fee simple title to the prop
erty in question
ants admits that all the interest that
said Mary e. Scott had in the land in
dispute was life estate; but AYERS
that when the defendants purchased
the same from said Frederick Singer
aforesaid, they believed that they de-
rived from said Singer a fee title there
TO. The defendants also specifically
disclaim any right or interest or title in
or to said property, OF to any part
thereof, or other or greater estate in or
to said property, than a life estate in
defendant Lena Sehoenbachler, limited
to the life Of said Mary E. Scott.
The cross-complaint sets up the facts
above stated, and in addition thereto
alleges as follows: THAT thereafter,
and in good faith, and without any
knowledge of plaintiffs said interest in
said property, and under the belief that
she owned the title in fee thereto, said
defendant, Lena Schoenbachler. paid
out and expended the sum of 5000 in
improving said property, that is to say
IN building and erecting a barn and
outhouses thereon, and in building an
addition to said house, and in improv-
ing the basement and foundation there
of; that, thereafter, it became necessary
and it was required by the ordinances
and laws of said City of Sacramento,
to make other necessary and permanent
improvements to and about said prop
erty, that is to say, to construct a cess
pool thereon, and to construct a cross
walk adjacent to and opposite said
property on Seventeenth street and to
grade the sidewalk in front of said
property, and to construct a cement
sidewalk in front of said property. and
also to grade the street in front of said
property.
And in good faith, and without any
knowledge of plaintiffs said interests
in and to said property, and believing
that she owned the title in fee thereto.
she constructed cesspool on said prop
erty, and constructed a crosswalk in
front thereof on Seventeenth street. and
graded the sidewalk in front thereof
down to the official grade, and paid for
grading the street in front thereof: and
there after-but without the knowledge of
plaintiffs interests in said property
she constructed a cement sidewalk in
front of said property, which she alleges
she was compelled to do by the ordi-
nances and laws governing said city of
Sacramento; which works and improve
ments are worth and for which she
paid the sum of 500 %. And defend
ants allege that all of said improve
ments upon and about said property
were necessary to be made to protect
the interests of the plaintiffs in said
property. and they still remain there -
The prayer of the cross complaint
asks, first: That plaintiffs be decreed
to have no interest, right or title in or
TO the house and improvements, barn
and outhouses which were by her placed
upon the premises. but that the same
be decreed to belong to her, and that
she have the right at any time to re-
move the same from said premises.
Second: That the construction of
said water pipe and cesspool on said lot.
and the laying of said cross walk on
said Seventeenth street, and the grad
ing of said sidewalk and construction Of
said cement sidewalk and the grading
of said street, We're necessary and per-
manent improvements to said property.
and Injured to the benefit of the plain
tiffs.
Third: That plaintiffs be made liable
to defendant, Lena Schoenbachler, for
the costs and expenses of said improve
ments, in proportion to the value of
their interests in said property, and
that the court determine and fix the
amount that plaintiffs are owing de-
| fendant Lena Schoenbachler, for their
proportion of the costs and expenses of
said improvements, and that the same
be declared to be lien on the interests
of the plaintiffs in said property, and
for such other or further relief as to the
1irt 81