Abstract of
Title
AND
CERTIFICATE
OF SEARCH
Lots 7 and 8 in Block 3 Range 11 North of the base line of the City of San Jose,
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
State of California.
Dated February 21, 1912
Made at the request of
John Hartzoke, Esq.
Pages 61-94
pg. 61
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
|
JAMES CASLEY, Plaintiff vs EVALINE A. GRIGGS, et al, Defendants. |
) ) LIS PENDENG. ) |
Notice is hereby given that a suit has been commenced in the above Court by the above named plaintiff against the above named defendants, which suit is now pending.
That the object of said suit is to obtain the judgment of said Court that the Assessment No. 1 made on the 24th day of August A. D. 1904, by the Street Superintendent of the City of San Jose, and recorded in “Street Assessment Roll B”, at page 415 et. seq., Record in said Street Superintendent's office is a valid and subsisting lien upon the lot of land designated on the Diagram attached to said Assessment as Lot Number 1; which said lot is situate in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and particularly described as Commencing at the point where the westerly line of Eleventh Street intersects the northerly line of and thence running westerly along the northerly line of St. John St. 137.5 feet; thence at right angles northerly and parallel to 11th Street 137.5 feet; thence at right angles easterly 137.5 feet to the Westerly line of 11th Street and thence southerly along said line of 11th street 137.5 feet to the place of beginning , being all of lot eight in block three, range eleven north of the base line as designated on the official map of the City of San Jose.
Said suit is also brought to foreclose the lien of said assessment and defendant's equity of redemption in and to said lot.
Dated January 19th, 1905.
C. T. Bird, Attorney for Plaintiff.
pg. 62.
RECORDED JANUARY 19, 1905.
Book 7 of Lis Pendens page 352.
The Suit in above entitled action is numbered 15729.
Reg. C 3 page 530.
1905
Jan. 19
Complaint filed, for $159.30 for Street assessment lien.
Jan. 19
Summons issued.
Mch 15
Affidavit of James Casley for publication of summons filed.
That defendants Evaline A. Griggs and E. Du Bois, do not reside within State, but each reside in State of New York and that service of summons cannot be made but by publication.
Duly verified and filed.
Mch 15.
Order that publication of summons be made in San Jose Herald, a newspaper &c. at least once a week for two months.
June 14.
Order granting defendants five days to demur or answer otherwise, filed.
Oct. 25.
Answer of defendants Eveline A. Griggs and E. Du Bois, filed. Prays that plaintiff take nothing by said action and that they be awarded their costs.
Duly verified.
Nov 20.
Answer of Defendant John Hartzoke filed, prays judgment and for costs of suit.
1911
Jan. 13.
Trial set for March 9, 1911, at 10 o'clock A. M.
Feby 24.
Request for dismissal filed.
Feby 24
“Pursuant to request for dismissal this day filed the above action is hereby dismissed.”
Henry A. Pfister, Clerk.
By Wm. T. Aggeler Deputy.
pg. 63
JAMES CASLEY
to
EVELINE A. GRIGGS, et al.
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the action of James Casley vs Eveline A. Griggs, E. A. Du Bois, John Hartzoke et al has been dismissed and the claim therein set forth fully paid and satisfied.
That the lien on the property described in the complaint in said action and in the Lis Pendens filed for record therein with the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, California, in Book 7 of Lis Pendens at page 352 is discharged and satisfied and the whole of said property released and discharged from said lien and said action being in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California.
DATED FEBRUARY 3, 1911.
ACKNOWLEDGED FEBRUARY 23, 1911.
Before George W. Waldorf, N. P.
RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 1911.
In County Recorder's Office.
Book 24 of Miscellaneous page 493.
pg. 64
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
By WM. A. JANUARY, Tax Collector
to
JOHN HARTZOKE.
DEED.
DATED JANUARY 20, 1905.
Consideration $2475.
Witnesseth: That whereas it is true that at the time of the publication and sale hereinafter mentioned Wm. A. January was the Tax Collector of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, that by virtue of and in conformity with the provisions of the Political Code of the State of California, levy was made according to law upon the property, of which description is first hereinafter given, for taxes due the State of California, and to the County of Santa Clara for the year 1898, together with costs and charges due thereon, inclusive of such special district taxes as may have been levied upon said property in the lesser taxation districts of said County of Santa Clara, that said property was assessed according to law in the year 1898 for the year 1898 at $4260 to Evaline A. Griggs and the same was liable and subject to taxation: that said taxes were levied upon said property, and its value was equalized as required by law.
That the amount of the tax so levied on said property was the sum of $101.57 Dollars as follows: for County purposes, the sum of $26.04, for City of San Jose purposes $54.74, for State purposes, the sum of $20.79, and the costs, charges and other special taxes which had accrued thereon at the time of the sale to the State of California hereinafter mentioned, amounted to the further sum of $13.17. That the said taxes were not and had not been paid, and at the time of the sale to the State of California, hereinafter mentioned remained wholly due and unpaid.
And Whereas, said Wm. A. January as Tax Collector aforesaid did, on the third Monday in May 1899, deliver to the Auditor of the County of Santa Clara, a complete Delinquent List of all
pg. 65
persons and property then owing taxes in said Santa Clara County, to the State of California, and to the County of Santa Clara, together with the costs, charges, and special taxes due thereon as aforesaid, which List included the property first hereinafter described; that publication of intention to sell for said taxes, costs, and charges was made as provided by law, and in said publication which was entitled “The Delinquent Tax List for 1898” was given the names of the owners known, of all the real estate described in said List, together with such a condensed description of such real estate that it could have been easily known, and also a similar condensed description of such real estate assessed to unknown owners, and also the names of every party delinquent for any tax on personal property and also opposite each name or description, the amount of taxes including penalties costs and charges as provided by law due from each delinquent person and property with taxes on personal property, the delinquent State poll, road and hospital tax, the taxes due each school, road or other lesser taxation district added to the taxes on real estate where real estate was liable therefor, or where the several taxes were due from the same person, and said publication was made by one insertion one time per week for three successive weeks in the “San Jose Daily Herald”, a newspaper published in the County of Santa Clara, towit: at the City of San Jose, therein; and said insertion were made and published, one on the 5th day of June 1899, one on the 12th day of June 1899, one of the 19th day of June 1899, and one on the 26th day of June 1899 and said publication did designate the day and hour when the property would by operation of law be sold to the State which time, (towit: upon the 27th day of June 1899, at the hour of 10 o'clock A. M. on said day) was not less than 21 nor more than 28 days from the first publication of said delinquent notice and did designate the place of said sale which place so designated was in the Tax Collector's office of said County:
pg. 66
That there was appended and published with said Delinquent List a notice that unless the taxes delinquent, together with the costs and percentage or penalties were paid the real property upon which such taxes were a lien would be sold. That on the day and hour fixed for the sale towit: on the 27th day of June 1899 at the hour of 10 o'clock A.M. In the Tax Collector's office of said County of Santa Clara, State of California, all the property assessed and delinquent as aforesaid situate lying and being within the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and described thus: In the City of San Jose, all of Lot 7 and 8 B 3 R 11 N was by operation of law and the declaration of said Tax Collector, sold to the State of California, as purchaser, in pursuance of law in such cases made and provided to pay said taxes of every kind charged against said property together with the penalties, costs and charges due thereon towit: the sum of $114.44 whereby the State of California became the purchaser of the above piece or parcel of land so sold as aforesaid; that the said real estate last aforesaid was sold for taxes and subject to redemption pursuant to the Statute in such cases made and provided:
And, Whereas, upon the consummation of such sale, Wm. A. January, the then Tax Collector aforesaid, duly executed his certificate of sale as required by law, which certificate recited the name of the person assessed (if known), a description of the land sold, the amount paid therefor, that it was sold for taxes, giving the amount and year of assessment; which certificate was duly filed and recorded in the office of the County Recorder of said County of Santa Clara, in Liber 15 of Certificate of Sale, at page 17 on the 12th day of August 1899, and which said Certificate of Sale and the record thereof, as aforesaid are hereby referred to and made a part of this Indenture:
And, Whereas, said Certificate of Sale further recited that unless the real estate so sold was redeemed within five years from the date of sale, the purchaser thereof would be entitled to
pg. 67
a deed thereof, on the 28th day of June 1904; that said certificate of sale was dated the 27th day of June 1899, the day of said sale;
And, Whereas, the time for the redemption of said property fully expired and the same was not redeemed, nor any part thereof;
And, Whereas, at the time of the execution of the deed to the State of California, hereinafter mentioned, more than five years had elapsed since the date of the sale of said property to the State of California:
And Whereas, on the 25th day of July 1904, Wm. A. January, Tax Collector as aforesaid, duly executed to the State of California, a deed of conveyance, conveying all the right, title, interest, and claim, as well in all as in equity, of the said delinquent, of, in or to the aforesaid property, and every part thereof, with the appurtenances; and which said deed, as by law required, recited all facts contained in the certificate of sale aforesaid, together with such other facts as would constitute a valid conveyance; said deed after being duly acknowledged, as required by law, so as to entitled it to be recorded – was duly filed and recorded in the office of the County Recorder of said County of Santa Clara, in Liber 3 of Deeds to State at page 44, and which said deed, and the record thereof aforesaid, are hereby referred to and made a part of this Indenture:
And Whereas, said deed after being duly recorded by the County Recorder, as aforesaid, was, by said County Recorder, as required by law, duly forwarded to the Controller of State and was, by said Controller, duly filed in his office and recorded at Length in a book provided for that purpose:
And, Whereas, at the time of the issuance of the State Controller's authorization hereinafter mentioned, no redemption has been made of said property or any part thereof, and the State of California had not disposed of the same, or of any part thereof, and the title thereto was still vested in said State:
pg. 68
And, Whereas, on the 11th day of November 1904, there was received and filed in the office of the Tax Collector of said County of Santa Clara, a written authorization, under the hand and seal of the Controller of State, bearing date the 10th day of November 1904, authorizing, empowering and directing the Tax Collector of said County of Santa Clara, to sell at public auction in separate lots or parcels, the property hereinbefore described, in the manner following: public notice to be first given of such sale by publication for at least three successive weeks in some newspaper published in the County, City and County, or if no newspaper was published therein, then by posting a notice in three conspicuous places in the County, or City and County, for the same period, which notices should state specifically the place of, and the day and hour of sale, together with a description of the property to be sold, and should also embody a copy of the Controller's said authorization:
And Whereas, said Controller's authorization recited the fact of the filing and recording of said deeds to the State of California, aforesaid, in the office of the Controller of State, and further directed that no bid should be received or accepted at such sale for less than the amount of all the taxes levied upon such property, and all interest, costs, penalties and expenses up to the date of the sale authorized by the Controller's authorization aforesaid, together with all such subsequent taxes remaining unpaid as might have been levied upon such property up to the date of the issuance to the State of the deed hereinbefore referred to, with all interests, costs, penalties, and other charges thereon added to such subsequent taxes:
And, Whereas, in pursuance of the authorization of the Controller of State aforesaid I, Wm. A. January, as Tax Collector aforesaid duly gave notice by publication as required by law and the Controller's said authorization, that I would on the 20th day of January 1905, at the hour of 10 o'clock A. M., in front of the
pg. 69
Court House door in said County of Santa Clara, and in accordance with the directions contained in the Controller's said authorization, sell in separate lots and parcels, at public auction, to the highest bidder for cash in lawful money of the United States the said property in said authorization (and hereinbefore in this Indenture) described: which said publication was made by one insertion one time per week for three successive weeks in “The Evening News” a newspaper published in the County of Santa Clara towit: at the City of San Jose, therein, and said insertions were made and published, one on the 28th day of December 1904, one on the 4th day of January 1905, and one on the 11th day of January 1905, and one on the 18th day of January 1905:
And Whereas, on the day and hour fixed for such sale, towit: on the 20th day of January 1905, at the hour of 10 o'clock A. M. Wm. A. January, Tax Collector aforesaid, attended such sale and offered said property for sale at public auction to the highest bidder for cash:
And, Whereas, at said time and place, John Hartzoke bid for said property the sum of $2475, which bid was not less than the amount of all the taxes levied upon said property and all interests, penalties, costs and charges which had accrued against said property up to the date of said sale as aforesaid, and said John Hartzoke being the highest and best bidder, I did then and there strike off and sell to said John Hartzoke the property hereinbefore in this Indenture described.
Now Therefore, in consideration of $2475 &c do grant, bargain, sell convey and confirm, unto the aforesaid John Hartzoke party hereto of the second part, all those certain lots, pieces or parcels of land, so sold, and heretofore in this Indenture of deed described as fully and absolutely as I, as Tax Collector aforesaid may or can lawfully sell or convey the same.
ACKNOWLEDGED JANUARY 21, 1905.
As Tax Collector &c.
Before Henry A. Pfister, County Clerk. (over)
RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1905.
Book 2 of Tax Deeds Page 77.
pg. 70
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA.
EVELINE A. GRIGGS, Plaintiff
vs
JOHN HARTZOKE, Defendant.
LIS PENDENS.
DATED (no date given)
Notice is hereby given that plaintiff has commenced an action in the Superior Court, of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, to quiet title against defendants in and to those certain pieces or parcels of land, situate, lying and being in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and described as Lots 7 and 8 Block 3 Range 11 North of the base line.
Wm. M. Beggs, Attorney for plaintiff.
RECORDED JUNE 13, 1905.
Book 7 of Lis Pendens page 419.
The suit in above entitled action is numbered 15,931 Register S 1 page 80.
1905
June 12
Complaint filed.
Plaintiff complains of defendants and for cause of action alleges:
I.
That the true names of John Doe, Richard Roe, and Jane Styles are unknown to plaintiff for that reason they are sued herein by said fictitious names, and plaintiff prays that when their true names are learned that they may be inserted herein in lieu thereof.
II.
That on July 26, 1897, and ever since said day, plaintiff was and still is the owner in possession and entitled to
pg. 71
1905
the possession of all those certain pieces or parcels of land, situate, lying and being in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and described as follows: Lots 7 and 8 in Block 3 Range 11 North of the base line according to the official map of said City of San Jose.
III.
That the defendants claim some right, interest or estate in said property adverse to plaintiff but said claim is without right.
Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against the said defendants and each of them. 1. That it be adjudged and decreed that plaintiff is the owner in possession and entitled to the possession of the property described in this complaint. 2. That it be adjudged and decreed that neither of the defendants have any interest in said property or any part or portion thereof. 3. For such other and further relief as would be meet in the premises.
Will M. Beggs, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Complaint duly verified.
June 12
Summons issued.
Sept. 6
Demurrer of John Hartzoke, defendant, filed.
Sept. 8
Order continuing hearing on demurrer John Hartzoke till Sept. 15, 1905.
Sept. 15
Order allowing defendant John Hartzoke to withdraw demurrer and granting 10 days to answer.
Oct 16
Stipulation setting cause for trial, Dec. 4, 1905, for hearing, filed.
Nov. 22
Answer and cross-complaint of defendant John Hartzoke, filed.
Dec. 4
Ordered that cause set for trial this day be dislodged, on motion of N. Bowden, Rec. 2 page 177 Dept. 1.
pg. 72
1905
Dec. 9
Demurrer filed.
Dec 15
Order continuing hearing on demurrer and cross complaint to Dec. 22, 1905.
Dec. 22
Order overruling demurrer. Notice waived; 10 days to answer cross complaint.
1906
Jan. 22
Answer to cross-complaint filed.
Feby 2
Trial set for March 14, 1906.
March 8
Amended answer to cross complaint filed.
Mch 14
Order continuing to March 15, 1906.
Mch 15
Order submitting cause.
Mch 30
Order submitting this cause be and the said order is hereby vacated and set aside.
“On motion of A. H. Jarman, Esq., it is ordered by the Court, that plaintiff be and she is hereby granted leave to file an amended complaint herein so that amended complaint may conform with the proof and the stipulation of the parties hereto.
Notice of the filing of the amended complaint was waived in open Court by the defendants. It is ordered, by the Court, that defendant be and they are hereby granted 10 days to appear or to answer the amended complaint herein.”
Rec. 2 (Dept. 1) page 291.
Mch 30
Amended complaint filed.
Comes now the above named plaintiff by leave of Court, first had and obtained, filed this her first amended complaint, and complains or defendants and for cause alleges: 1. That on July 26, 1897, and ever since said day, plaintiff was and still is the owner, and entitled to the possession of all those certain pieces or parcels of land, situate, lying and being in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and described as follows: Lots 7 and 8 in Block 3 Range 11 North of the Base Line, according to the official map of the said City of San Jose.
pg. 73
1906
2. That the said defendants are in possession of said above described premises and claim some right, interest and estate in said property adverse to plaintiff but said claim is without right.
Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against the said defendants, and each of them, that it be adjudged and decreed that plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession of the property described in this complaint, and that plaintiff be placed in possession of said premises by process of this Court.
Second: That it be adjudged and decreed that the defendants have no estate or interest whatever in or to the said lots or any part or portion thereof.
Third: For such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
Will M. Beggs and A. H. Jarman, Attorneys for plaintiff.
Complaint duly verified.
Mch 30
Order allowing defendant 10 days to answer amended complaint.
Apl 9
Demurrer of defendant John Hartzoke to amended complaint filed.
Nicholas Bowden, Attorney for said defendant.
Apl. 13
Demurrer withdrawn, 10 days to answer.
June 4
Order allowing 10 days additional to answer amended complaint, filed.
Nov 5
Answer and cross complaint of defendant, John Hartzoke, to amended complaint filed.
Nov. 16
Demurrer of plaintiff to answer of defendant Hartzoke filed.
Nov. 16
Order overruling demurrer filed.
pg. 74
1906
Nov 16
Plaintiffs answer to defendants cross complaint to the amended complaint filed.
Nov 16
Order setting trial, Nov. 30, 1906.
Nov 26
Demurrer of defendant Hartzoke to answer of plaintiff to cross complaint of said defendant filed.
Nov. 30
Notice waived leave granted to amend cross-complaint in 5 days and to amend answer to cross complaint in 10 days thereafter.
Nov 30
Cause dislodged to be reset.
Dec 6
Answer and cross complaint of defendant, John Hartzoke, to amended complaint filed; denies that ever since July 26, 1897 plaintiff was and still is the owner and entitled to the possession of all those certain pieces or parcels of land, situate in City of San Jose, &c.: Lots 7 and 8 in Block 3 Range 11 North of the base line. Said defendant admits that he is in possession of all said lots and that he was in the exclusive possession of all of them at and long prior to the time of the commencement of this action, and yet is in possession, and claims right, interest and estate in and to said lots adverse to plaintiff but denies said claim is without right.
Answering said amended complaint defendant avers:
That he and his grantors for a period of more than five years continuously next before the commencement of said action have been owners and seized in fee and in the actual and exclusive possession of all the lands and premises described in said amended complaint.
That he and his grantors have continuously since the 20th day of January 1905 been in actual and exclusive possession of said lands as the sole owners thereof under claim of title founded upon written instruments executed to them and that said instruments conveyed and purported to convey to said defendant in fee absolute the whole of said lands
pg. 75
1906
and premises, and that said actual possession by defendant and his grantors, was at all times continuous during said period of more than 5 years immediately preceding the commencement of said action at all times since have been and still is open and notorious and exclusive in him and them and adverse to said plaintiff and to all the world and that said defendant and his grantors have paid all the taxes State, County and Municipal which at any time have been levied and assessed upon said lands and premises and upon each and every part thereof and that said plaintiff was not nor was her ancestors or grantees, seized nor possessed of any of said lands or premises within five years next before the commencement of said action. Further answering that between said first Monday in March 1898 and the first Monday in July 1898, Lewis A. Spitzer was Assessor and as such assessor duly assessed said property for State and County Taxes and Municipal Taxes for City of San Jose, for said year 1898, the property assessed in the name of Eveline A. Griggs, the plaintiff herein.
That said taxes were not nor any part thereof paid by plaintiff or by any person and in due course became delinquent:
That prior to and on the first Monday in March 1898 and for more than one year therefore &c. Wm. A. January was the duly elected, qualified and acting Tax Collector of County of Santa Clara, State of California.
That said Tax Collector in due course under and by virtue in conformity of provisions of Political Code of State of California and the law of said State in such behalf and towit: the 27th day of June 1899, sold said land and premises described in complaint, and the whole thereof for said taxes of said year, 1898, to State of California. (according to the law in such cases provided.)
p. 76
1906
That said plaintiff has not redeemed said lands and premises nor any part thereof from said sale.
That in due course and in conformity with provisions of political code and the law of State: towit: the 25th day of July 1904, the said Wm. A. January, made and executed a deed of conveyance of said property to State of California (said deed recorded in book 3 of Tax Deeds page 44) hereinbefore in this abstract shown.
That in due course and according to law &c., towit: on January 20, 1905, the said Wm. A January, as Tax Collector of said County, after due and legal notice, offered for sale at public auction to the highest bidder for cash, said lands and premises and that said defendant, John Hartzoke, then and there at said sale offered and bid the sum of $2475, cash, and that said defendant was the highest bidder therefor, and he then and there became the purchaser for said sum.
Said deed is duly recorded in Book 2 of Tax Deeds page 77.
That no part of said purchase price has ever been tendered or repaid said defendant John Hartzoke, by said plaintiff nor by any person whatever and that the same is and remains unpaid to said defendant.
That since the commencement of said action and on last Monday in November 1905, said defendant, John Hartzoke paid in cash to said Tax Collector of Santa Clara County the sum of $103.94 for State, County and Municipal Taxes for City of San Jose assessed against said lots and parcels of land, for fiscal year 1905-1906, and on the 7th day of November 1906, said defendant paid in like money to said Collector, the sum of $104.80 and for fiscal year 1906-1907. No part of which has ever been paid by plaintiff to defendant or by any person in her behalf, whatever: Said defendant has paid all claims against lots
pg. 77
1906
assessed to or required to be paid from and after the fiscal year 1897 down to the present time, including said sum of $2475 and said sum of $103.94 and said sum of $104.80, no part of which has been repaid to him.
That said plaintiff did not have any claim in and to said lots and that by virtue of said deeds and proceedings herein alleged said defendant on the first Monday in March 1898, ever since has been and now is the owner in fee absolute of said lands, as herein described.
Defendant prays judgment that plaintiff take nothing by said action and that the Court adjudge and decree herein that said plaintiff has no estate, title or interest in said lands and premises, nor in and to any part thereof and that plaintiff be enjoined and forever debarred from making or asserting any claim to said pieces or parcels of land and that defendant have relief as shall appear proper in the premises.
Nicholas Bowden, Attorney for defendant John Hartzoke.
Dec. 6
Cross complaint of defendant John Hartzoke filed. (Recites same facts as in answer last above set forth) and prays judgment of said Court against said plaintiff and against his co-defendants as follows:
1st. That it be adjudged and decreed that said cross-complainant is the owner in the possession and entitled to the possession of all the lands and premises described in this cross-complaint.
2nd. That it be adjudged and decreed that said plaintiff has no interest in, title to, or claim upon said lands and premises nor any part thereof.
3rd. That it be adjudged and decreed that neither of his co-defendants has any interest in title to nor claim upon said lands and premises nor any part thereof.
4th. That said plaintiff and his co-defendants and each
pg. 78
1906
of them be forever debarred from making or effecting any claim to said lands and premises or any part thereof and that cross-complainant may have such other and further relief herein, as shall appear proper in the premises.
Nicholas Bowden, Attorney for said Cross Complainant.
Schedule A and B Deeds from Tax Collector to State and from State of California to Hartzoke respectively.
Dec. 18
Plaintiffs amended answer to defendant Hartzoke's cross-complaint filed. Denies allegations of said Hartzoke. Admits that she claims some right in said lands and premises and avers that she is the owner in fee thereof. Prays that said defendant take nothing by his cross-complaint and that this plaintiff is the owner in possession and entitled to the possession of all the lands and premises described in said amended complaint.
That it be adjudged and decreed that said defendant and cross-complainant be forever barred from making or effecting any claim to the said premises or any part thereof and that plaintiff have other and further relief as would be meet in the premises.
Will M. Beggs, A. H. Jarman, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Duly verified.
1907
Jan 18
Order setting Feby 8, 1907 at 2 P. M. for trial.
Feby 8
Three witnesses sworn and examined and action dismissed as fictitious defendants. Ordered that action be submitted on briefs 10 and 5 days. Record 2 page 540.
July 12
Order for judgment for defendant and for his costs.
1908
Jan 27
Findings filed.
Recites proceedings had as in amended complaint of plaintiff
pg. 79
and the last answer and cross complaint of defendant filed Dec. 6, 1906, and the answer of plaintiff to said cross-complaint.
As conclusions of law, the Court now finds and decides as follows:
1st. That said plaintiff did not at the time of the commencement of this action, nor at any time since have, nor has she now any estate, right, title or interest whatever in or to the lands and premises, the subject of said action described in her said amended complaint nor in or to any part or portion thereof:
2nd. That said plaintiff is not entitled to be adjudged or decreed that she is the owner or entitled to the possession of the lands and premises described in said amended complaint nor any part or portion thereof nor entitled to be placed in possession of said lands and premises nor any part or portion thereof:
3rd. That said plaintiff is not entitled to the relief demanded by her in the prayer of said amended complaint nor to the relief demanded by her in her amended answer to said cross-complaint of said defendant nor to any judgment, decree or relief whatever:
4th. That said defendant, John Hartzoke, was at the time of the commencement of this action, ever since has been and now is the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of all and every part and portion of those certain lots, pieces and parcels of land and the real property described in said amended complaint of said plaintiff and in said last cross-complaint of said defendant situate, lying and being in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and particularly described as follows, towit:
Lots 7 and 8 in Block 3, Range 11 North of the Base Line, according to the official map of the said City of San Jose:
pg. 80
1908
5th. That said defendant, John Hartzoke, is entitled to the relief prayed for in his said last answer and cross-complaint herein and to a decree quieting his title to said lands and premises and real property above described and to every part and portion thereof in himself and against any and all claims, demands and pretensions asserted thereto by said plaintiff or by any person or persons claiming or to claim the same under her and perpetually enjoining, restraining and debarring them and each of them from asserting any claim whatsoever therein or thereto adversely to said defendant and cross-complainant;
6th. That said defendant, John Hartzoke, is entitled to a judgment against said plaintiff for is costs herein expended:
7th. And that judgment and decree be entered in favor of said defendant, John Hartzoke, and against said plaintiff, Eveline A. Griggs, accordingly.
Dated this 27th day of January, 1908.
J. R. Welch, Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
Jan 27
Judgment and Decree filed as follows:
The above entitled cause came on regularly for trial in and before said Court on the 14th day of March, 1906, and was on trial, from time to time thereafter, to and including the 26th day of July, 1907.
The action was commenced by said plaintiff against said defendant, John Hartzoke, and certain fictitious defendants to determine the ownership of the real property, the subject of the action, hereinafter described, and the conflicting claims of the parties, plaintiff and defendant, respectively, to said property and continued and prosecuted
pg. 81
1908
to judgment upon the issues raised and joined by the amended complaint of said plaintiff and the last answer and cross-complaint , (filed in said action December 6th, 1906), of said defendant, John Hartzoke, to determine said ownership of said real property and said conflicting claims of said plaintiff and said defendant and cross-complainant, John Hartzoke, thereto and to enjoin and forever debar said plaintiff from making or asserting any claim to said real property or any part thereof and to decree that said defendant's and cross-complainant is the owner and entitled to the possession of said real property and that said plaintiff has not interest in, title or claim upon the same or any part thereof and for other and general relief and is in the nature of a suit to quiet title of said real property, and was tried by the Court without a jury, a jury trial having been expressly waived by the respective parties:
Will M. Beggs, Esq., and A. H. Jarman, Esq., appeared as the attorneys for said plaintiff, and Nicholas Bowden, Esq., appeared as attorney for said defendant and cross-complainant, John Hartzoke.
The action was dismissed as to the other defendants, John Doe, Richard Roe and Jane Styles, was are sued herein as fictitious defendants by and under said names.
At and during said trial said remaining parties, plaintiff and defendant, offered and introduced oral, documentary and record evidence and their respective attorneys made their oral arguments and presented their briefs to the Court and on said 26th day of July, 1907, said cause was submitted to the Court for its decision; and the Court having heard all the evidence and having fully considered the same and the arguments and briefs of said counsel and having been fully advised and satisfied in the premises and having filed its findings of fact and conclusions of
pg. 82
1908
law and decision in writing and having in and by said findings, conclusions and decision ordered that judgment and decree be entered in accordance therewith for said defendant and cross-complainant, John Hartzoke, and against said plaintiff, Eveline A. Griggs.
WHEREFORE by reason of the law and the findings, conclusions and decisions, aforesaid, IT IS NOW ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: that the said action be and the same hereby is dismissed as to said fictitious defendants, John Doe, Richard Roe, Jane Styles.
IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: that said plaintiff did not at the time of the commencement of this action, nor at any time since have, nor has she now any estate, right, title or interest whatever in or to the said real property, the subject of this action, nor in or to any part or portion thereof: that said plaintiff was not at the time of the commencement of this action, nor at any time since nor is she now the owner or entitled to the possession of said real property or any part of portion thereof nor entitled to be placed in possession of said real property or any part or portion thereof: nor entitled to the relief demanded by her in the prayer of said amended complaint nor to the relief demanded by her in her amended answer to said cross-complaint, of said defendant nor to any judgment, decree or relief whatever.
IT IS ALSO FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: that said defendant and cross-complainant, John Hartzoke, was at the time of the commencement of this action, ever since has been and now is the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of all and every part and portion of said real property, that is to say: all and every part and portion of those certain lots, pieces and parcels of land and the real property described in said amended complaint of
pg. 82 ˝
1908
said plaintiff and in said last answer and cross-complaint of said defendant, situate, lying and being in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and particularly described as follows, to-wit: Lots 7 and 8 in Block 3, Range 11 North of the Base Line, according to the official map of the said City of San Jose; and that his title thereto and to the whole thereof hereby is quietted (sic) in him, the said defendant and cross-complainant against all claims, demands and pretensions asserted thereto by said plaintiff or by any person or persons claiming or to claim under her and that said plaintiff and all persons claiming under her hereby are and each of them is perpetually enjoined, debarred and restrained from asserting any claim whatsoever therein or thereto adversely to said defendant and cross-complainant.
IT IS ALSO HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED: that said defendant and cross-complainant, John Hartzoke, have and recover from said plaintiff, Eveline A. Griggs, his costs and disbursements incurred in this action, amounting to and taxed at $18.60.
Dated the 27th day of January, 1908.
J. R. Welch, Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of California.
Duly verified.
Jan 25
Certified copy decree, recorded in Co. Recorder's office, in Book 20 Miscl. Page 386.
Jany 28
Cost bill filed.
Jany 28
Notice of decision and cost bill filed.
Jany 29
Judgment entered in Judgment book 6 page 98.
Jany 29
Judgment docketed and roll filed.
Feby 4
Costs entered.
Feby 5
Notice of motion (Feby 14, 1908) to vacate and to enter another and different judgment and to amend and correct the conclusions of law.
pg. 83
1908
A. H. Jarman and Will M. Beggs, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Feby 5
Notice of plaintiffs attorneys to move for new trial, filed.
Feby 14
Hearing upon motion of plaintiff for order setting aside and vacating judgment and amending and correcting conclusions of law and for different judgment continued one week.
Record 3 page 153.
Feby 21
Hearing (last above) continued one week.
Record 2 page 161
Feby 28
Hearing to set aside judgment and correct conclusions of law &c. and order that said motion be and the same is denied and plaintiff is allowed 10 days to prepare bill of exceptions.
Rec. 3 page 163.
Mch 18
Notice by plaintiffs attorneys to appeal to Supreme Court from order of Feby 28, 1908 refusing to vacate and set aside judgment filed.
Mch 18
Undertaking on appeal filed.
Apl 24
Settlement of bills of exception continued one week.
Rec. 3 page 212
May 1
Same last above continued one week.
Rec. 3 page 218.
May 8
Continued one week.
Record 3 page 232
May 15
Continued one week.
Record 3 page 231.
May 22
Bill of exceptions on motion for new trial settled and filed.
May 22
Bill of exceptions to vacate settled and filed and order that motion for new trial be denied.
May 22
Notice and undertaking on appeal to Supreme Court filed.
1909
Aug 24
Remittitur from Supreme Court, filed. Affirming judgment and order of Superior Court, together with certified copy of opinion.
pg. 84
TAX SUITS
pg. 85
IN THE DISTRICT COURT THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiffs.
vs
ESTATE OF EDWARD GILBERT and the Real Estate and Improvements
hereinafter described. Defendants.
TAX SUIT. No. 1624.
1865
Mch 3
Complaint filed to obtain judgment against real estate and improvements for taxes for fiscal year 1865-1866 in sum of $5.58, covers Lots 7 & 8 Block 3 Range 11 North, San Jose.
Apl 3
Summons issued.
Apl 26
Summons returned and filed. Certificate of Sheriff that on Apl 22, 1865 he posted copies of said summons on each of said lots above described, and that the defendant cannot be found in said County.
May 24
Default of defendants entered and filed.
May 24
Cause referred to Court Commissioner.
May 27
Proof of publication of summons made and filed.
May 26
Decree entered for $26.73 and that execution issue against real estate for same.
Oct. 31
Execution issued.
1866
Jan 22
Execution returned and filed, fully satisfied. Shows Sheriff's levy on Nov. 8, 1865, upon lots 7 and 8 Block 3 Range 11 North of Base line and sale on Dec 23, 1865 to Sherman Day for $31.22.
Pg. 86
DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SANTA CLARA COUNTY.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiffs.
vs
EDWARD GILBERT, Estate of, and the Real Estate and Improvements
hereinafter described.
TAX SUIT. No. 937.
1866
Feby 6
Complaint filed to recover amount due on State and County taxes for year 1865-1866, on Lots 7 and 8 Block 3 Range 11 North.
Feby 12
Summons issued.
Feby 23
Summons filed.
“Upon payment of taxes and costs this suit is hereby settled and dismissed Mch 3, 1866.”
James A. Clayton Clerk.
By A. E. Pomeroy Deputy.
pg. 87
DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT SANTA CLARA COUNTY.
THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL of the City of San Jose, Plaintiffs
vs
SHERMAN DAY,
JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE, and the Real Estate and the Improvements
hereinafter described. Defendants.
TAX SUIT. No. 571.
1866
Feby 3
Complaint filed to recover $8.75 for City taxes for fiscal year 1865-1866 against Lots 7 and 8 Block 3 Range 11 N of the base line City of San Jose.
Feby 3
Summons issued.
Feby 23
Summons returned with endorsement “Paid in Full.”
Feby 23
Upon payment of taxes and costs this suit is herewith dismissed. Paid March 3, 1866 to Logan.
James A. Clayton Clerk.
By A. E. Pomeroy Deputy.
pg. 88
IN THE DISTRICT COURT, THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
The People of the State of California, Plaintiffs.
vs
JANE M. SAVAGE JOHN DOE and RICHARD ROE and the Real Estate and the Improvements
hereinafter described. Defendants.
TAX SUIT. No. 2005.
1871
Dec 29
Complaint filed, to obtain judgment for $74.34 taxes for fiscal year 1871-1872 on Lot 7 Block 3 Range 11 North in the City of San Jose.
Dec 29
Summons issued.
1872
Feby 20
Summons served, returned and filed.
May 20
Judgment entered and following endorsement thereon.
“Sheriffs office, Santa Clara County.
These taxes were paid to the Tax Collector November 18, 1871, and his Receipt therefor has been produced.
Jno. H. Adams, Sheriff.
By Thos. C. Winchell, Deputy Sheriff.”
pg. 89
TAXES.
STATE, COUNTY AND CITY.
From
1850-1851
to
1863-1864 Void, No dollar mark.
1864-1865 Paid.
1865-1866 City Taxes, suit brought. Taxes paid Mch 3, 1866.
State & Co. Estate of E. Gilbert, sold to Sherman Day.
1866-1867
to
1870-1871 Paid.
1871-1872 Suit brought, taxes subsequently Paid.
1872-1873
to
1897-1898 Paid.
1898-1899 Sold to State June 27, 1899.
1899-1900 No tax on land (covered by mortgage.)
Mortgage tax Du Bois delinquent.
1900-1901 No tax on land (covered by mortgage.)
Mortgage tax Du Bois sold to State June 27, 1901.
1901-1902 Delinquent.
1902-1903 Delinquent.
1903-1904 Delinquent.
1904-1905
to
1910-1911 Paid.
1911-1912 First Installment Paid.
Second installment a lien and payable.
NO JUDGMENT LIENS.
THE FOREGOING ABSTRACT, consisting of pages 1 to 89 inclusive, made at SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, FEBRUARY 21, 1912, at 9 o'clock A. M. ….. Juanita Halsey, Searcher of Records.
pg. 90
CONTINUATION OF FOREGOING ABSTRACT.
As to remaining interest of John Hartzoke in Lot 8 (handwritten 7) Block 3 Range 11 North of Base Line.
pg. 91
JOHN HARTZOKE (a single man).
To
J. C. HAYES
DEED.
DATED MARCH 15, 1912.
CONSIDERATION $10.
Grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the second part, and to his heirs and assigns forever, all that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and bounded and particularly described as follows, towit: Beginning at a 4” x 4” stake standing where the Northerly line of St. John Street intersects the Easterly line of Tenth Street, and running thence along said Easterly line of Tenth Street Northerly 137.92 feet to the line between lots 6 and 7 Block 3 Range 11 North; thence along the line between said lots 6 and 7, Easterly 45.83 feet; thence on a line parallel with Tenth Street Southerly 137.92 feet to the Northerly line of St. John Street; thence along said Northerly line of St. John Street Westerly 45.83 feet to the place of beginning.
ACKNOWLEDGED MARCH 16, 1912.
Before Sewell Hatcher, N. P.
RECORDED MARCH 16, 1912.
Book 382 Deeds page 231.
Grantee's interest not searched.
pg. 92
JOHN HARTZOKE, a single man
to
J. B. BEAN.
DEED.
DATED MARCH 18, 1912.
CONSIDERATION $10.
Grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the second part, and to his heirs and assigns forever, all that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and bounded and particularly described as follows, towit: Beginning at a stake standing on the Northerly line of St. John Street distant Easterly along said Northerly line of St. John Street 45.83 feet, from the intersection of the Northerly line of St. John Street with the Easterly line of Tenth Street; thence on a line parallel with Tenth Street, Northerly 137.92 feet to the line between lots 6 and 7 Block 3 Range 11 North; thence along the line between said lots 6 and 7, Easterly 45.83 feet; thence on a line parallel with Tenth Street Southerly 137.92 feet to the Northerly line of St. John Street; thence along said Northerly line of St. John Street Westerly 45.83 feet to the place of beginning.
ACKNOWLEDGED MARCH 21, 1912.
Before W. M. Sontheimer, N. P.
RECORDED MARCH 21, 1912.
Book 382 Deeds page 244.
Grantee's interest not searched.
pg. 93
JOHN HARTZOKE (a single man)
to
JOHN S. MISE.
DEED.
DATED JANUARY 7, 1913.
CONSIDERATION $10.
Grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm, unto the said party of the second part, and to his heirs and assigns forever, all that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and bounded and particularly described as follows, towit: Beginning at a stake standing on the Northerly line of St. John Street distant Easterly along said Northerly line of St. John Street 91.66 feet, from the intersection of said Northerly line of St. John Street with the Easterly line of Tenth Street, running thence on a line parallel with the Easterly line of Tenth Street, Northerly 137.92 feet to the line between lots 6 and 7 Block 3 Range 11 North; thence along the line between said lots 6 and 7, Easterly 45.83 feet; thence on a line parallel with Tenth Street Southerly 137.92 feet to the Northerly line of St. John Street; thence along said Northerly line of St. John Street Westerly 45.83 feet to the place of beginning.
ACKNOWLEDGED JANUARY 7, 1913.
Before Sewell Hatcher, N. P.
RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1913.
Book 394, Deeds page 376
Grantee's interest not searched.
pg. 94
TAXES
STATE COUNTY AND CITY.
From
1911-1912
to
1913-1914 Paid.
NO JUDGMENT LIENS.
THE FOREGOING CONTINUATION, consisting of pages 90 to 94 inclusive made at SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, APRIL 29, 1914, at 9 o'clock A. M.
JUANITA HALSEY, Searcher of Records.
Transcribed by: Jeanne Sturgis Taylor.
Source:
Halsey, Juanita, Searcher of Records, Abstract of Title and Certificate of Search Lots 7 and 8 in
Block 3 Range 11 North of the base line of the City of San Jose, County of Santa Clara, State of
California. 1914.
© 2013 Jeanne Sturgis Taylor.
California Statewide
GOLDEN NUGGET LIBRARY INDEX