Reclamation Dist. No. 551 v. Van Loben Sels

COOPER, C.

Action to quiet title. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff and defendant Van Loben Sels, and against defendant McCullough, who has appealed therefrom on the judgment-roll and a bill of exceptions.

The controversy is about a small lot of 2.6 acres described in the complaint by metes and bounds. Plaintiff is a reclamation district organized under the laws of California for the purpose of reclaiming swamp and overflowed lands.

In September, 1895, one Olsen was the owner of the lot, and in consideration of $924.88 conveyed the same to plaintiff by grant, bargain, and sale deed. The deed contained the following concluding clause: “To have and to hold the same unto the said Reclamation District No. 551, its successors and assigns, for the purpose of reclamation only; that is, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining thereon reclamation-works consisting of levees, pumps and pump-house, drains, ditches, and other reclamation-works used in and about the reclamation of the lands of said Reclamation District No. 551, and if said lands shall cease to he used for such purposes, the same shall thereupon revert to the said party of the first part, and all right, title, and interest of said party of the second part therein shall he terminated and ended.”

[183]

After the deed was delivered the plaintiff entered into possession of the lot and constructed reclamation-works thereon, and said land has ever since been used for reclamation purposes, and has never ceased to be so used.

In April, 1902, the plaintiff conveyed the land by deed to defendant Van Loben Sels, “reserving to plaintiff the right to use a convenient and necessary part of the" building on said premises as a storehouse for its tools and appliances used for the purposes of reclamation.”

In October, 1898, Olsen conveyed to defendant McCullough all his title and interest in the land, and she is still the owner of whatever title remained in Olsen after the conveyance to plaintiff.

Appellant in her answer alleged that she was the owner in fee of the land, through her deed from Olsen; that she was in possession thereof; that plaintiff has ceased to use the same for reclamation purposes, and had abandoned and lost all its right in and to the premises; and finally, prayed judgment that she was the owner of the premises, free of any easement or right of any kind in plaintiff.