Snodgrass v. Errengy

KOFORD, P. J.

Respondent, as plaintiff in the court below, obtained judgment against defendants, including appellant herein, quieting her title to an acreage of land in Los Angeles County. Appellant’s answer denied respondent’s title and asserted title to a strip of land along respondent’s southern boundary. This strip is about 36 feet wide and contains about 1.10 acres. Appellant’s claim of title is based upon a tax deed. Respondent claims title by adverse possession.

The original source of respondent’s title, as well as of the title of whoever owned the property immediately to the south of her land, was a decree of partition of the Rancho Tajauta, by which respondent’s land was allotted to Ascención Valenzuela and the land to the south of her was allotted to Felipe Valenzuela. The deeds of respondent’s predecessors up until the years 1882-1885 contain descriptions which fix the southern boundary as the northern boundary of the Felipe Valenzuela allotment. At that time George Reed and wife acquired the land. Reed and wife, by deeds in 1888, 1890, and 1891, conveyed to C. Snodgrass, the immediate predecessor of respondent, all the land described in the complaint, using descriptions which did not tie to the Felipe Valenzuela northern boundary, but included the strip of land now in dispute here. Respondent’s testimony established that for thirty-four years she and C. Snodgrass were in possession, cultivating the same, and that the southern boundary of the land possessed by them was marked by a fence the posts of which, at the time of the trial, were still standing in their original position; that the land was fenced at the time they took possession; that she had paid all taxes assessed in her name for many years down to date of trial. Her tax receipts since 1911 were received in evidence and the description contained in the assessment-rolls of the land assessed to her is a subject of controversy between the parties. The description used called for 30.51 acres exclusive of roads. This was the correct amount of land in plaintiff’s inclosure. A metes and bounds description followed, which, if laid out

[666]

on the ground, would include only 30 acres and would omit one-half of the disputed 1.10-acre strip. According to the testimony of a civil engineer and surveyor, Hopkins, the southern boundary line of respondent’s property was so described by this metes and bounds description in the assessment-roll that it bisected the disputed strip from its northwest corner thereof to the southeast corner, leaving out a triangular shaped one-half of the disputed 1.10-acre strip.