Hayes v. Martin

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1873 No. No. 3,084Published

Before: Rhodes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the verdict for the defendant could not be sustained because the evidence failed to establish adverse possession for the statutory period over the entire tract, and the portion actually possessed could not be identified with sufficient certainty. Furthermore, the court clarified that pending survey proceedings do not toll the Statute of Limitations against a party in adverse possession.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported a verdict for the defendant based on adverse possession of the entire premises.
Whether the court could enter judgment for only a portion of the land when the pleadings and evidence failed to describe that portion with sufficient certainty.
Whether pending proceedings for the approval of a land survey toll the Statute of Limitations against an adverse possessor.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence does not tend to show that the defendant had the possession of all the premises described in the complaint.”

“A judgment for the defendant, as to the whole land sued for, could not be sustained, and a judgment for a part, without describing it, so that it might be identified, instead of ending the litigation, would open up new controversies.”

Synopsis

Adverse Possession.—An adverse possession does not ripen into a title unless continued for five years.

Judgment for Defendant in ¡Ejectment.—If the plaintiff in ejectment shows title, and the defendant relies on adverse possession, and only shows an adverse possession of a part of the demanded premises, a judgment in his favor for all the demanded premises is erroneous.

Idem.—In such case the Supreme Court cannot direct the Court below what part of the demanded premises to give the defendant judgment for, unless the record contains a correct description of that part of the demanded premises to which the defendant is entitled.

Statute of Limitations as to Mexican Grant.—The pendency of proceedings for the approval of a survey of a Mexican grant of land, does not stop the running of the Statute of Limitations in favor of one in the adverse possession.

Claiming Land Adversely.—One who relies on title by adverse possession, to land included in a Mexican grant, need not show that he claimed adversely to the United States, but it is sufficient if he shows that he claimed adversely to the title on which the plaintiff relies.

Effect of Tax Sale on Statute of Limitations.—One who is in tho adverse possession of land does not impair his right to rely upon the Statute of Limitations by purchasing the land at a tax sale, unless he makes the purchase for the owner under an agreement to have a lease of the land or a portion thereof, which would amount to a recognition of the owner’s title and stop the running of the statute.

By the Court, Rhodes, J.: This is an action for recovery of the possession of about three thousand acres of land, alleged to be a portion of the Rancho Muscupiabe, situated in San Bernardino County. The defendant Martin, in addition to certain denials which are about equivalent to a general denial, pleads the Statute of Limitations. The other defendants, who allege that they are the tenants and employés of Martin, seem to have dropped out of the case. The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

The plaintiffs for proof of title, rely upon the grant of the rancho, made by Governor Micheltorena in 1843, a decree of confirmation of the claim of the grantee, and mesne conveyances from the grantee to the plaintiffs. An examination of the evidence leaves no doubt that the premises in controversy are within the boundaries of the rancho as granted, and the boundaries mentioned in the decree of confirmation. The jury must have found for the defendant on the issue of adverse possession. But the verdict on that issue cannot be sustained by the record now before us. The evidence does not tend to show that the defendant had the possession of all the premises described in the complaint. It is, however, shown that he had the possession of the Swartwout tract, containing about two hundred acres, at the time when the action was commenced, but it is not proven that he had such possession for the full period of five years, next .preceding the commencement of the. action. He was therefore not entitled to a verdict for that tract, on the ground of adverse possession.

The only portion of the premises sued for, of which the defendant had the possession for the statutory period of five years, is a tract of about one hundred and sixty acres; and the defendant’s counsel suggest that if the judgment is for too much, he may be permitted to release the excess; but [563]conceding that the evidence showed the adverse possession of a portion of the lands sued for, there is nothing in the pleadings or the evidence, that will enable the Court to describe such portion of land with the requisite degree of certainty. A judgment for the defendant, as to the whole land sued for, could not be sustained, and a judgment for a part, without describing it, so that it might be identified, instead of ending the litigation, would open up new controversies.

As the cause must be remanded for a new trial, some of the questions raised in respect to the operation of the Statute of Limitations may be disposed of.

Hayes v. Martin

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief