Carpenteria School District v. Heath

Ross, J.: This action was brought to quiet title to a piece of land which the plaintiff claims was dedicated hv the defend tint for school purposes.

[479]From evidence which was substantially conflicting, the Court below found, as the facts of the case, “ that on or about January 1st, 1868, defendant dedicated to public use, for school purposes, thereof erected its school building upon land immediately adjoining the land dedicated by defendant, plaintiff’s trustees intending the latter as and for the play-ground of the scholars attending the schoolj that said building would not have been so erected at that place but for such dedication by defendant, and so defendant knew at the time; that about said date, defendant removed his fence theretofore inclosing said parcel of land so as to exclude said land from his inclosure, and leave it open to the use of plaintiff | that thereupon plaintiff, by its trustees, went into the possession of said land, and has occupied it for school purposes ever since; that soon after, defendant himself became one of the trustees of plaintiff, and as such trustee graded and improved said land, so that the same could be used for school purposesj and the cost thereof was paid out of the funds of said school district, with the knowledge and consent and upon the order of defendant; that the dedication aforesaid was not made in writing, but was made by the acts and declarations of defendants ” ; and upon these facts the Court below entered judgment, estopping defendant from claiming the land so long as the same should be used for school purposes.

The statement already made disposes of the objections to the findings, under the well-established rule that we will not interfere with the findings of fact when based upon evidence which is substantially conflicting.

The only other point made by appellant is, that66 the trustees must act in the mode prescribed by the statute creating the corporation ; and as no vote of their district enabling them to take the land in dispute is alleged to have been liad, they were not empowered to receive a dedication of this land, if it had been tendered to them”; and this,it is claimed, by reason of § 26 of the Act of April 6th, 1863, which was in force at the time the [480]