Wagner v. Meinzer

California Court of Appeal Aug 9, 1921 No. Civ. No. 3823.Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the prior appellate decision constitutes the law of the case because the facts remained substantially unchanged, and that the defendant established title by adverse possession despite technical inaccuracies in tax assessments and pleadings.

Issues

Whether the law of the case doctrine applies when the evidence on the second appeal is substantially the same as the first.
Whether payment of taxes on land described in a deed satisfies the requirements for adverse possession of an overlap created by an established division line.
Whether technical inaccuracies in pleadings and tax descriptions warrant reversal when substantial justice has been served.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The decision of this case upon the former appeal is the law of this case, because the facts are substantially unchanged”

“the payment of the taxes on the land assessed according to such description is a payment of taxes on the land included in the overlap, for the purpose of establishing a title thereto by adverse possession.”

“It is apparent from the entire record that substantial justice has been done between the parties”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. George H. Cabaniss, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

[784]

LANGDON, P. J.

This is an action in ejectment to recover possession of about seven feet ten inches of land on Nebraska Street, San Francisco, together with damages for its retention. The judgment was in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.

[1]

This is the second trial of the action. Upon the first trial, judgment was in favor of plaintiff, defendant appealed and the judgment was reversed. The opinion of division one of this court upon the former appeal appears in volume 38 Cal. App. 670, [177 Pac. 293]. From the statement of facts in the opinion upon the former appeal it would seem that the facts-shown are substantially the same upon both appeals. The additional testimony upon this appeal is stated by appellant to be the testimony of Jacob Corinson, called by plaintiff in rebuttal, but this negative testimony at best raises a conflict in the evidence which was resolved against the plaintiff by the trial court, and cannot be disturbed here.

It would, therefore,, appear that there is no substantial difference .in the record upon the two appeals which would change the rule of law announced by the court upon the former appeal.

[2]

Appellant also urges that because the defendant paid taxes upon land assessed in the manner described in his deed, and not upon lánd assessed in accordance xwith the proper description of the land actually occupied by him, he has not complied with the statutory rule with reference to payment of taxes upon land held adversely. That contention is fully met by the case of

Price et al.

De Reyes,

161 Cal. 484, [119 Pac. 893], where it was held that as a division line, established as in the present case, attaches itself to the deeds of the respective coterminous owners, and defines the lands described in each deed, so that the one in possession of the overlap holds title thereto by the same tenure as he holds the lands technically embraced in the description, the payment of the taxes on the land assessed according to such description is a payment of taxes on the land included in the overlap, for the purpose of establishing a title thereto by adverse possession.

Wagner v. Meinzer

AI Brief

Synopsis

LANGDON, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief