Mauldin v. Cox

Citations

• 67 Cal. 387
• 7 P. 804
• 1885 Cal. LEXIS 653

Syllabus

<p>Married Woman—Homestead—Action to Recover Possession—Adverse Possession—Statute of Limitations.—A married woman may maintain an action in her own name without joining her husband to recover possession of the homestead property; and as to such property, the Statute of Limitations will run against her in favor of an adverse possessor.</p> <p>Id.—Homestead Cannot be Held Adversely by either Husband or Wife.— During coverture, and while the husband remains the head of the family, neither party to the marital relation can hold the homestead adversely to the other.</p> <p>Id. —Lease of Homestead by Husband—Tenant Cannot Hold Adversely to Wife.—A tenant under a lease of the homestead executed by the husband without the concurrence of the wife is estopped during the existence of the term from asserting an adverse possession against either the husband or the wife.</p> <p>Id.—Possession when Adverse.—Adverse possession such as will set the Statute of Limitations in motion must be open and notorious as well as continuous, and of such a character as to operate as notice to the owner that possession is held under a claim of right, and to establish an ouster of the owner.</p> <p>Id.—Owner must have Notice of Adverse Claim. — The owner has a right to he informed of the claim set up against him, cither by acts or words, before the statute will run; and if the acts of the party in possession are of such a character as reasonably to indicate to the owner that the holding is not adverse, but in subordination to the title, the statute will not run.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence—Entry under Lease. — On a review of the evidence, held, that the acts of the defendants, subsequent to tlieir entry into the homestead under a lease from the husband, were not sufficient to indicate to the wife that their holding was adverse.</p>