Knight v. All Persons, Etc.

California Court of Appeal Dec 21, 1916 No. Civ. No. 1941.Published

Before: Richards

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff acquired valid title to the property through adverse possession and a prior judgment quieting title against the city, as the city's ordinances and the Van Ness map did not effectuate a valid dedication of the land as a public street.

Issues

Whether the city's ordinances and the Van Ness map effectively dedicated the disputed land as a public street.
Whether an abstract of title was admissible as secondary evidence to prove a destroyed 1868 judgment quieting title.
Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding of title by adverse possession.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It follows that the contention of the appellants herein that the extension of Alameda Street over said lands as shown upon said map was effectual as working a dedication of said lands to public uses as an extension of said street, cannot be sustained.”

“This judgment when' proven must be held to be conclusive as to its effect in quieting the title to said premises in favor of the plaintiff’s grantor and against the city and county of San Francisco”

Synopsis

Municipal Corporations — City and County op San Francisco— Scope op Van Ness Map.-—The map of the city and county of San Francisco, made pursuant to the terms of the Van Ness ordinance, is limited by virtue of the express terms of such ordinance to those lands lying west of Larkin Street and southwest of Johnson Street, and cannot be given effect as to the portion which undertakes- to cover lands lying without such boundaries by the extension of street lines thereon beyond the limits prescribed for the official survey.

Id.—Quieting Title—PRoop op Destroyed Judgment—Abstract op Title.—Where in an action to quiet title under the McEnerney Act to a lot in the city and county of San Francisco, the plaintiff relied upon a judgment obtained by her predecessor in interest quieting his title to the property against the city, and it was shown that the original record of such suit and judgment was destroyed in the conflagration of 1906, evidence of an abstract of title made by an abstract and title company, purporting to be a correct and complete abstract of all matters appearing of record affecting the title to the property, and also purporting to show the filing of the complaint in such suit and the entry of judgment therein, was properly admitted as secondary evidence of such destroyed record under the provisions of section 1855a of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in 1911.

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in plaintiff’s favor in an action to quiet title under the McEnerney Act. [Stats. 1906 (Ex. Sess.), p. 78.] The land

[382]

in question is a rectangular lot lying at the southeasterly end of South Beach block No. 40 in the city and county of San Francisco, near the corner of Eighth and Channel Streets, and which would be included within a prolongation of Alameda Street. The plaintiff alleges that she is the owner of said lot, deriving her title thereto by a deed from her husband, Thomas Knight, dated September 17, 1901, and from her alleged open, actual, peaceable, exclusive, and notorious possession of said property since said date. The defendants George L. Center, Joseph B. Coryell, and William Matson, who are the appellants herein, and who appeared in the said proceeding to contest the plaintiff’s claims, are the owners of premises adjoining that claimed by the plaintiff, and which would abut upon Alameda Street if such street were prolonged so as to cover the property in dispute. These defendants in their answers deny that plaintiff is the owner of said premises through her deed thereto from Thomas Knight, or otherwise, and deny that she has been in the actual, peaceable, or exclusive possession of the same since the seventeenth day of September, 1901, or since any other date than July 1, 1910; and in addition to said denials they affirmatively allege that the said tract of land was duly laid out, dedicated, and accepted to public use as a street by the city of San Francisco, the then owner of all the lands in that region, including said tract, by virtue of an ordinance duly and regularly adopted by the constituted authorities of said city on the twentieth day of June, 1855, numbered 822, and also by an ordinance confirmatory of said ordinance 822 duly and regularly adopted on September 27, 1855, and numbered 845, under which said ordinances a certain official map of that portion of said city, known as the “Van Ness map, ’ ’ was made; and also by an act of the legislature ratifying and confirming both of said preceding ordinances, duly adopted on March 11, 1858. The said defendants allege that they have an easement in the said premises thus claimed to have been dedicated as a public street, and pray that the plaintiff take nothing by her said action.

Upon the issues thus framed the cause proceeded to trial, whereupon it appeared that the lands in question were originally a part of the pueblo of said city lying within the exterior limits of South Beach block No. 40, and were part of a large area of tide-lands within the charter limits of said

Knight v. All Persons, Etc.

AI Brief

Synopsis

RICHARDS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief