President of San Diego v. Allison

By the Court, Belcher, J.: This action was brought to remove a cloud from the title to certain real property claimed by the plaintiffs. The property in question lies in the Bay of San Diego, between ordinary high-water mark and the ships’ channel, and within two miles of the City of San Diego. It is claimed by the plaintiffs as a part of the pueblo lands confirmed to the City of San Diego by the proper authorities of the United States, and by the defendants, under certain alleged locations of it as tide land, which were initiated by them in 1868, and completed by payment in 1872, in pursuance of the laws of this State. The case was tried by the Court, and a judgment rendered that the defendants named “have no estate or interest in the land described in the complaint in this action adverse to the plaintiffs, John G. Capron, Volney E. Howard, and Charles P. Taggart, and that said plaintiffs last named recover their costs incurred and expended in this action, taxed at-dollars, of and from said last named defendants.”

From this judgment, and from an order denying a motion for new trial, the defendants have appealed.

It appears from the findings, and the order denying the motion for new trial, that neither the plaintiffs nor defendants had any title to the premises; but the Court was, nevertheless, of the opinion that because the plaintiffs named were in possession, by their tenant, of a small parcel, claim[167]ing the whole under a written conveyance, they were, therefore, entitled to the judgment rendered.

Assuming that the Court was right in its conclusions as to the facts, it is difficult to see upon what ground the judgment can be maintained. If the plaintiffs had no title, the abortive attempts made by the defendants to purchase the land of the State could neither “constitute a cloud upon the plaintiff’s title,” nor “depreciate the value thereof,” nor “ molest them in the enjoyment of their said property.” In this view of the case, it is entirely immaterial that the defendants have no estate or interest in the land adverse to the plaintiffs. If neither party owns it, neither is entitled to any judgment as against the other in reference to it. Nor is the alleged possession of the small parcel by the plaintiffs an answer to the objection. Possession is not title, but only evidence from which title may be presumed. When, therefore, notwithstanding the possession, the Court found from the whole evidence that the plaintiffs had no title, it found, in effect, that they had no cause of action.