Powers v. Bank of Oroville

CHIPMAN, C.

Action to quiet title. Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from the order deiiying its motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

The premises in controversy are part of lot 1, block 21, in the town of Oroville, being forty-three feet eleven inches thereof, lying on the westerly side of Myers Street. Defendant claims the northerly fifty-seven feet and five inches of this lot, overlapping the land claimed by plaintiff two feet and ten inches, which latter strip alone is in controversy.

The court found the following facts: That “on March 1, 1888, one James C. Gray was the owner of all of lot 1 except a strip thirteen and one-fourth feet wide on the south side thereof, and on said day sold to E. A. Halstead, and conveyed by deed, what was then known as the Brown House property (which included the land in dispute), and which was then inclosed by a substantial fence, which said fence has been maintained from the date of said sale to the present time”; that Halstead entered into possession of said lot, culti

[488]

vated and improved the same, from the date of his purchase to the date of his sale of the premises to plaintiff herein, and said plaintiff and her grantor have paid all taxes, state, county, and otherwise, levied and assessed upon said land, since said first day of March, 1888, to the commencement of the action; “that the possession of plaintiff and her grantor since said March 1, 1888, to the commencement of the action has been open, notorious, peaceable, adverse to all the world and under claim of right;” that Halstead conveyed by .deed to plaintiff the land in controversy on June 3, 1897, who immediately took possession thereof with her family, and has maintained the-same exclusively to the commencement of the action; that the land and premises sold by Gray and conveyed by deed on March 1, 1888, to Halstead, “contained, among other lands, that which is the subject of dispute, and after said sale said Gray never made any claim to any of the lands contained in the description set out in said deed of conveyance, nor to any of the lands contained within the Brown House lot, being the land inclosed, of which the land in dispute is a part.” The conclusion of law was, that plaintiff is the owner of the land described in the complaint, and is entitled to have his title to the same quieted, and judgment was accordingly so entered.