Bd. of Educ. of S.F. v. Donahue (1878) · DecisionDepot

Bd. of Educ. of S.F. v. Donahue

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1878 No. No. 6083Published

Before: Crockett, McKinstry, Wallace

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the official map and the Commissioners' report, when read together, sufficiently identify the lots reserved for school purposes, and that the Board of Education has the legal authority to maintain an action to recover possession of such lots.

Issues

Whether the official map and Commissioners' report sufficiently identify the lots reserved for school purposes.
Whether the Board of Education has the legal authority to maintain an action to recover possession of a school lot.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Reading the map as it then was, and construing the map with the certificate thereon, in connection with the report, we are of opinion that the report and map of themselves sufficiently identify the lots reserved for school purposes.”

“Nor can it be seriously questioned, we think, that under the statutes defining the rights and powers of the Board of Education, it may maintain an action to recover the possession of a school lot.”

Synopsis

Evidence of Reservation of School Lots.—In 1856, Commissioners were appointed by the Common Council of San Francisco to select lots for school purposes. The same year they submitted a report and accompanying map, designating twenty-eight lots as having been selected. The map was certified by the Commissioners to be authentic and correct, and the lots selected were colored brown. The report and map were approved by the Council: held, that the map with the accompanying certificate and report sufficiently identify the lots reserved for school purposes.

Ejectment for School Lot in San Francisco.—The Board of Education of San Francisco may, under the statues defining its rights and powers, maintain ejectment for a school lot.

Opinion — Crockett

By the Court, Crockett, J.: The action is ejectment for a lot in the Mission Addition of the City of San Francisco, and is included in the territory embraced by the Van Ness Ordinance, so called. The. defendant was in possession at the commencement of the action, but at the trial showed no title or right to the possession, except such as is to be inferred from the fact of possession. J udgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff moved for a new trial on the ground, amongst others, that the judgment and decision of the Court were not justified by the evidence. The motion was denied and the plaintiff appeals.

[192]In deraigning its title the plaintiff relied upon Ordinance 822 of the Common Council of the City of San Francisco, (the Van Hess Ordinance); upon Ordinance 845 of said Council; upon the order of said Council appointing Commissioners to make a plan of that portion of the city, showing the streets and the lots reserved for public use, and to select lots as sites for school-houses, fire engine houses, public parks, etc.; also upon the report of said Commissioners; the map or plan reported by them; the ordinance or order of the Justices of the Peace exercising the powers of a Board of Supervisors, adopting, approving, and accepting the plan or map reported by the Commissioners ; and upon the Act of the Legislature of March 11th, 1858, ratifying said ordinances. The Commissioners reported that they had selected twenty-eight lots as sites for schoolhouses, and that the lots so selected- were one hundred and thirty-seven and one-half feet square, except those on the Potrero, which were one hundred feet by two hundred feet in size ; and that as sites for engine-houses they had selected twenty-five lots, each thirty by one hundred and thirty-seven and one-half feet, except those on the Potrero, which were thirty by one •hundred feet. The report also states that the Commissioners had adopted* the plan or map which accompanied the report, “ showing the streets so laid out, and the lots and squares selected for the above public purposes,” and recommending its adoption as the official map of that portion of the city. The ordinance "of the Justices of the Peace, acting as a Board of ■ Supervisors, adopted the plan or map reported by the Commissioners, and declared it to be “ the plan of the city in respect to the location and establishment of streets and avenues and the reservation of squares and lots for public purposes ” in that portion of the city.

Related research

It is clear beyond controversy that the Commissioners selected twenty-eight lots for school purposes, all of which were intended and were supposed to be one hundred and thirty-seven and one-half feet square, except those on the Potrero, which were intended and supposed to be one hundred by two hundred feet, and that they also selected twenty-five lots for the uses of the Eire Department, which were intended and supposed to be in size thirty by one hundred and thirty-seven and one-lialf feet, except those on the Potrero, which were intended and supposed to be thirty by one hundred feet in size. We are to read the map as though it was now in the same condition as when it was delivered to the Common Council, and the evidence shows that the paper on which the map was made was then perfectly white, with certain spaces inclosed in rectangular lines which were colored brown, and certain other smaller spaces similarly in[195]closed which were colored red; that the spaces colored brown were twenty-eight in number, and the smaller spaces colored red were twenty-five in number; that all the spaces colored brown either had the figures “ 137-6 ” inscribed on the lines, or by the general plan and arrangement of the map these figures were applicable to the lines, except in respect to several spaces so colored which were situate south of Market Street, on which the figures “ 100,” “ 200 ” were inscribed on the lines of each respectively. Of the smaller spaces colored red, situate north of Market Street, there are no figures on the map to indicate the size of them; but on the lines of those south of Market Street the figures “30,” “137-6” are inscribed on the lines respectively, except that several of them have the figures “ 30,” “ 100 ” inscribed on the lines. At the trial, evidence was offered by the plaintiff to show what the figures indicated; but it was excluded by the Court. But, considered in the light of the Commissioners’ report, there is no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the figures were intended to represent feet and inches. They report that the school lots were one hundred and thirty-seven and one-half feet square, except those on the Potrero, which were one hundred by two hundred feet; and when we find those figures inscribed on the lines of twenty-eight lots, or applicable to them by the general plan of the map, the presumption is that the figures were intended to designate the quantity by feet and inches. We leave out of view the notorious fact that the greater portion of the city was laid out into lots one hundred and thirty-seven and one-half feet square. We find, then, first, that the general color of the map was white; second, that the Commissioners reported that they had selected twenty-eight lots for school purposes, and their certificate on the map states that said lots are set apart for public use “ as herein designated ”; third, there were found on the map twenty-eight lots colored brown, with figures indicating the size, corresponding both in numbers and size with the lots stated in the report to have been selected for school purposes ; fourth, the coloring of the spaces on the map thus distinguishing them from the body of the map must have been done for some purpose, and when considered [196]in connection with the report, it becomes apparent that the purpose was to indicate that the lots so colored brown were reserved as school lots.

Bd. of Educ. of S.F. v. Donahue

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Crockett

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — Wallacemckinstry

AI Brief