County of Los Angeles v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

CONREY, P. J.

This action was instituted by the county of Los Angeles to condemn certain property for public use. In the property sought to be condemned was lot 13, block K, of the town site of Howard, in said county.

James T. Dunn and Grace P. Warden are among the defendants. Each of these two defendants claims to be the owner of said lot. The court found that it was the property of Grace P. Warden, and that she was entitled to receive $1,700, the value thereof, on the condemnation thereof. The interlocutory judgment was entered March 1, 1926. James T. Dunn appeals from that part of the judgment which runs in favor of said Warden. Appellant, in his brief, concedes that “on the 31st day of January, 1910, C. D. Warden became the owner of lot 13, block K, Howard town site, by virtue of a deed from the state”; and “shortly prior to the commencement of this action, said Warden conveyed all his right, title and interest to defendant and respondent, Grace P. Warden, who thereupon became the holder of the legal title and remains so unless subsequently divested of the same by the adverse possession of appellant, James T. Dunn.” The deed from the state to C. D. Warden, and the previous deed to the state were based upon a sale for nonpayment of taxes, and those proceedings are iconceded to have been regularly conducted according to law.

The controversy herein, therefore, involves only the ¡validity of appellant’s title, claimed to have been acquired jby adverse possession after the date of the tax deed. The 'evidence shows, without conflict, that for more than five

[514]

years next after that date, appellant continued to plant, cultivate and harvest crops of barley on this and adjoining land during the appropriate seasons of each year, without seeking permission from anyone, and without interference or molestation from any other person, although respondent Warden was well aware of these facts; also that during the years 1911, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, and 1916 appellant paid all taxes levied against the land. No taxes are shown to have been levied in 1911 or 1912, therefore it is presumed that there were none.

(Monroe

v.

Pleasants,