Case Name: HARRIS v. HARRIS et al.
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1906-11-21
Citations: 7 Cal. Unrep. 319
Docket Number: 
Parties: HARRIS v. HARRIS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 7
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
HARRIS v. HARRIS et al.
Court of Appeal, Third District;
November 21, 1906.
88 Pac. 384.
Quieting Title—Issues and Proof.—Where, in an action to quiet title, plaintiff alleged that the lot in question was formerly owned by a certain association, and defendants established that they were the successors in interest of such association, defendants, in order to entitle themselves to recover, were not bound to prove title in such association.
APPEAL from Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco; J. B. Hebibard, Judge.
Action by Anna Harris against Michael G-. Harris and others. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Marcus Rosenthal for appellant; M. G. Cobb and H. K. Wolff for respondents.

Opinion:
McLAUGHLIN, J.
Action to quiet title to a lot in the city of San Francisco. In her complaint the appellant alleged that the lot in question was formerly owned by the Central Park Homestead Association, and defendants, by competent evidence, established the fact that they are the successors in interest of said association. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned averment appellant contends .that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings in favor of respondents, because no evidence was introduced showing title in the said association. It is an elementary rule that the law neither does nor requires an idle act, and it would certainly be idle for defendants to consume time and energy in proving a fact alleged in the complaint and not denied in the answer. The finding that defendants are the owners of the lot in dispute is also assailed on the ground that the evidence shows that plaintiff had acquired title by adverse possession. There is nothing in this point. The evidence is ample to sustain the findings, and, as this is the only point presented for decision, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Chipman, P. J.; Buckles, J.