Hoadley v. City & County of San Francisco
Before: Rhodes
Synopsis
Dedication of Public Squares to Public Use.—An act of the Legislature, ratifying and confirming a void ordinance of a municipality providing for laying out public squares on pueblo lands within its limits, and a void order made by the municipal authorities adopting a plan, survey, and map of such public squares, reported by commissioners appointed for that purpose, operates as a selection and dedication of the squares to public use, and no other or further acceptance by the public is needed in order to make the dedication complete.
Limitation of Actions as to Pueblo Lands.—The Statute of Limitations as to the pueblo lands in the city of San Francisco did not commence to run until the passage of the act of Congress of July 1, 1864, granting and relinquishing the title to the city.
Use of Public Squaees in a City.—If squares in a city are dedicated to public use, the use does not vest in the city, nor in the inhabitants, but in the public.
Effect of Acquisition of Title to Lands Dedicated to Public Use.— If a city lays out and dedicates public squares on the pueblo lands within its limits, and the dedication is ratified by an act of the Legislature, and Congress afterwards relinquishes to the city the title of the United States to the lands, for the uses and purposes mentioned in the ratifying act, the act of Congress confirms the dedication, and makes it operative upon the legal title, as well as upon such title as the city held prior to the act of Congress.
Statute of Limitations as to Public Squares and Roads.—If lands have been possessed for such a length of time as will, under the operation of the Statute of Limitations, extinguish the title held by a private person, or a municipality, such adverse possession will not also extinguish a public use of the land to which it has been dedicated, such as the light of the public to use it for a road, or a public square.
Idem.—If the title to land is granted to a city in trust for the use of the public, private xiersons cannot acquire the right to it by an adverse possession for the period prescribed in the Statute of Limitations.
By the Court, Rhodes, J.: This action was brought to quiet the title of the plaintiff to two pieces of land, one of which forms a part of Alta Plaza, and the other a part of Hamilton Square, as laid down on the maps of the city. The plaintiff claims title under the Van Ress Ordinance and the confirmatory act of March 11, 1858 (Stats. 1858, p. 52), and the act of Congress of July 1, 1864, by which the title of the United States was relinquished and granted to the city for the uses and purposes specified in the act of March 11, 1858, and he also [272]claims title by adverse possession. The defense is that the plaintiff did not acquire the Van Ness Ordinance title; that the squares were dedicated as public squares, and that the Statute of Limitations had not run at the time of the commencement of the action, so as to bar the rights secured by the dedication of the squares to public use, or affect the title held by the city.
The proofs show that the plaintiff was in the actual possession of the premises on the 1st day of January, 1855, and so continued up to and after the 20th day of June, 1855; and that the title vested in him under the Van Ness Ordinance and the confirmatory acts, unless the squares were selected and dedicated as public squares. The sixth section of the ordinance provides that the city may lay out and reserve upon the lands west of Larkin street and southwest of Johnston street “public squares, which shall not embrace more than one block, corresponding in size to the adjoining’ blocks; provided that the selection shall be made within six months from the time of the passage of this ordinance,” and that not more than one-twentieth of the land in the possession of any person shall be taken for that purpose without due compensation. The clause of the proviso last mentioned may be dismissed from consideration, as the evidence does not show that more than one-twentieth of the lands of the plaintiff’s grantor were taken for the purposes mentioned in that section. Ordinance No. 845, approved September 27, 1855, provided for the election of commissioners to discharge the duties specified in Ordinance No. 822 (the Van Ness Ordinance), and directed the commissioners and the city surveyor to furnish, within a month from the date of their appointment, a plan for the location of the streets and the lots and grounds selected under the Yan Ness Ordinance. The act of March 11, 1858, recites that commissioners were appointed in pursuance of the aforesaid ordinances, and that they, together with the city surveyor, agreed upon and reported for the approval of the Common Council “a plan for the location of streets, public squares and lots for public uses, to be laid out west of Larkin and southwest of Johnston street, in said city, accompanied by
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)