Booth v. County of Los Angeles

PRESTON, P. J.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment declaring title to certain property to be vested in defendant County of Los Angeles subject to an easement for street purposes in favor of the city of Compton and refusing to quiet the title of plaintiff as prayed.

There is little dispute of fact and a general statement of the conditions existing, with reference to the title to the property involved, will suffice.

On June 27, 1884, one Harshman was the owner of the property. On said date Harshman made, executed and delivered to respondent County of Los Angeles his deed conveying to said county the property. The said deed, after describing the property, contained the following clause:

“This conveyance is made for the purpose of a road or highway, to revert to said J. J. Harshman, his heirs and assigns if not so used.”

Immediately subsequent to the execution and delivery of said deed the County of Los Angeles used the premises as a road and continued said use until 1888, at which time the city of Compton was incorporated. It might here be noted that the lands here involved were at all times within the territory embraced by the city of Compton, though said city was not incorporated until the time mentioned. The land being within the corporate limits of the city it was used thereafter as a street and was continuously so used until about 1916, at which time “Alameda” Street, as it was called, was straightened out and paved so that it was moved some sixty feet to the west. Since that time the property has not been used as a street or road. The street has not

[261]

been vacated by any official action. Since 1916 the County of Los Angeles has been in possession of the premises, using the same continuously as a stock pile upon which to store decomposed granite and rock for the county road department.

It is further stipulated and agreed that any and all reversionary rights are in plaintiff.

We are of the opinion that the judgment must be affirmed. The law of the case may be taken from the opinion in the case of

Hasman