Dupond v. Barstow

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1873 No. No. 2,740Published

Before: Crockett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiff failed to acquire title because he did not satisfy the condition precedent of paying required taxes and assessments. Consequently, the city held the land free of trust, and the legislature had the authority to direct its conveyance to the defendants.

Issues

Whether the payment of taxes and assessments was a condition precedent to acquiring title under Order No. 800.
Whether the legislature had the authority to direct the conveyance of land to the defendants in the absence of a qualified beneficiary under the federal trust.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the payment of the taxes by the claimant, or by his predecessors in interest, or by some one acting for or on his or their behalf, should be a condition precedent, without the performance of which the title would not pass.”

Synopsis

Conditions Precedent to Vesting of Title.—Congress relinquished and granted to the City of San Francisco the right of the United States to certain pueblo lands within its limits, to hold in trust, to dispose of, and convey the same to parties in possession thereof, on such conditions as • should be prescribed by the Legislature. One of the conditions proscribed by the Legislature, by which a person in possession, or who had been unlawfully ousted, was to become entitled to the benefit of the Act of Congress, was that, prior to a certain time, all taxes which had been assessed during the five years preceding, shall have been paid: Held, that no title vested in one in possession, or who had heen ousted from possession, unless he, or some one acting in his behalf, had paid such taxes: Held, also, that the same rule prevailed as to the payment of an assessment imposed on the land as a condition precedent to vesting title.

Ratification by the Legislature.—The ratification by the Legislature of an ordinance of a city is equivalent to its reenactment by the Legislature.

If there is no Beneficiary the Trust is Discharged.—Where land is granted by Congress to a city, in trust, to dispose of and to convey the same to parties in possession thereof, on such conditions as the Legislature shall prescribe, and a condition prescribed is the payment of previous taxes before a Certain time, and the person in possession does not make such payment, there is no beneficiary of the trust, and the city acquires the legal title divested of th'e trust, and may convey the same to any party.

By the Court, Crockett, J.: The action is in the usual form to recover the possession of a tract of land within the corporate limits of the City and County of San Francisco; and the plaintiff" claims to have acquired the title in virtue of the provisions of the Act of [450]Congress of March 8th, 1866, entitled “An Act to quiet the title to certain lands within the corporate limits of the City of San Francisco” (14 Stats, at Large; 4), and of a certain ordinance, numbered eight hundred, afterwards passed by •the Board of Supervisors of said city and county* which was •ratified by the Act of the Legislature of March 27th', 1868. (Stats. 1867-8, p. 379.) The defendants also claim title derived from the same source, and through the Act of the Legislature of March 14th, 1870. (Stats. 1869-70, p. 353.) By the Act of March 8th, 1866, Congress relinquished and granted to the City of San Francisco all the right and title of the United States in and to certain lands therein described .(which include the premises in controversy), in trust that said land “ shall be disposed of and conveyed by said city to parties in the bona fide actual possession thereof, by themselves or tenants, on the passage of this Act, in such quantities and on such terms and conditions as the Legislature of the State of California may prescribe.” On the 14th of January, 1868, the Board of Supervisors adopted an order inaugurating a plan or system for carrying into execution the above recited Act of Congress. After providing a plan for the subdivision of the land into blocks and lots, the location of streets, and the reservation of certain portions for parks and other public uses, it provides for an appraisal of the lands so reserved and for an assessment on the remaining lands sufficient to pay the appraised value of the lands reserved. Section eleven then provides as follows:

“Upon the payment to the County Treasurer of the City and County of San Francisco of the amount assessed by the committee provided for in section thirteen of this order, upon the lands as provided for in section ten of this order, the City and County of San Francisco hereby relinquishes and grants all the right, title, and claim which the said city and county now has or may hereafter acquire as the sue[451]cessor of the Pueblo of San Francisco, or as the grantee or the patentee of the United States, in and to the lands hereinbefore in this order described, and not excepted or reserved, or intended to be excepted or reserved by any of the preceding sections or provisions of this order, and which may not be set apart for public use under any of the preceding sections and provisions, and upon which shall be paid, previous to the 1st day of April, 1868, all taxes which have been assessed thereon during the five fiscal years preceding the year -beginning July 1st, 1866, unto the person or to the heirs and assigns of persons, who were, on the 8th day of March, 1866, in the actual bona fide possession thereof, by themselves or their tenants, or having been ousted from such possession before or since said day, have recovered or may recover the same by legal process. And it is hereby declared to be the intent and object of this section to pass the right, title, and claim of the said city and county in and to every tract or portion of said land delineated on said map, except the portions that are or may be reserved as aforesaid, possessed by one person, unto the possessor thereof, in severalty; and every separate tract or portion thereof, except the portions that are or may be reserved as aforesaid, possessed by more than one person, jointly or in common, unto the possessors thereof, jointly or in common.”

Dupond v. Barstow

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief