Thompson v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co.

PRESTON, J.

This is an appeal by plaintiffs from a judgment of nonsuit entered after both sides had concluded the introduction of their evidence. The single issue presented is the plea of the statute of limitations, subdivision

2

of section 338 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Eespondents’ statement of the facts and of the question involved is accurate and as follows:

“September 22, 1917—Eloise Wright Porter was granted a life estate in the property in question, with the reversion in plaintiffs’ predecessors.

“November 4, 1919—-Eloise Wright Porter deeded parcel 1 to the defendant. This deed made no mention of any life estate.

“November 7, 1919—Eloise Wright Porter deeded parcel 2 to the defendant. This deed made no mention of any life estate.

“January, February, and March, 1920—The defendant constructed and put into operation a railroad line over parcels 1 and 2, and has continuously operated said line, carrying freight and passengers thereover, as part of its system, in interstate and intrastate commerce, since said date.

“August 1, 19-22—Eloise Wright Porter died.

“August 14, 1924—The plaintiffs began this action.

“The plaintiffs are reversioners and the owners of the fee simple title to parcels 1 and 2, the property here in litigation.

“ The sole question in this case is whether the statute of limitations began to run against the reversioners at the date of the entry by the railroad or at the date of the death of the life tenant.”

Appellants state their position in these words: “Plaintiffs’ right to the possession of parcels 1 and 2 matured only upon the termination of Eloise Wright Porter’s life estate and with it ripened into maturity their cause of action against the railroad company for continuing to use and occupy parcels 1 and 2 beyond the period limited by their grant.”

[580]