Gird v. Ray
Before: Cope
Synopsis
The Possessory Act of 1852 is intended for the benefit of actual settlers. And where plaintiff resided upon a tract of land adjoining the land in dispute, and then located his claim under said act upon this disputed tract, by complying with its provisions so far as to mark out its boundaries, file his affidavit, inclose and plant fruit trees on about one acre of it, and occasionally work other portions thereof, but still residing on the other tract, and never actually living oil this : Held, that he cannot recover in ejectment against a party subsequently surveying, taking possession of, and inclosing the land preparatory to claiming it under the Act of 1852 ; that whatever may have been plaintiif’s rights during the period allowed for putting improvements on the premises, they were lost at the expiration of that period by his nonresidence.
Held, further, that if plaintiff had perfected his claim by actual residence on the land, he might have absented himself for sixty days without forfeiting his rights; but that the fifth section of the Act of 1852 does not apply where the party has never resided upon the land.
Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court Field, C. J. concurring.
The act prescribing the mode of maintaining and defending possessory actions (Wood’s Dig. 526) was intended for the benefit of actual settlers. The plaintiff failed to show that he ever resided upon the land claimed by him under the provisions of that act. The suit was brought more than four months after the location of the claim, and whatever his rights may have been during the period allowed for putting improvements upon the premises, they were lost at the expiration of that period by reason of his non-residence. If his claim had been perfected by an actual residence [354]upon the land, he might have absented himself for the period of sixty days without incurring a forfeiture of his rights; but the provisions of section five of the act were not intended to apply to the case of a person who had never resided upon the land claimed.
Judgment affirmed.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)