Martin v. Walker

Morrison, C. J. — Ejectment for lands embraced within the rancho Laguna de San Antonio, in Marin County,, [318]California. The lands in controversy are a portion of the tract of land included in the partition suit of Gates v. Salmon, commenced in the year 1860, and finally determined in the Fourth District Court March 28, 1877. In the partition suit referred to, the lands described in the complaint in this action were set apart and allotted to Walker, the defendant in this action, who was also a party defendant in the suit for partition of the rancho.

The plaintiffs here claim title as tenants in common with Walker, under certain deeds executed by him to them and their grantors, and the defendant Walker, he being, in fact, the only defendant in the case, claims to own the lands in severalty by virtue of a long adverse and exclusive occupancy and possession of the same. Defendant’s plea of the statute of limitations was sustained by the court below, and this is the only question presented for consideration on appeal.

On the trial the defendant testified as follows:—

“I know the land described in my answer in the case of Gates v. Salmon, .... and also that described in the complaint in this action. The land described in this complaint is the same thing as that described in that answer. I have occupied that land for over twenty years. No one has occupied it with me. Neither of the plaintiffs have ever had possession of any of that land. The land is fenced, both by an exterior and a cross fence. I have used the whole of the land for farming and grazing. The description in the answer includes the old Potrero which I occupied for a number of years, and sold off to Davis and another, and it also includes the first five described tracts in the complaint. I ain’t going to be too sure about that, I want you to understand; but I think that at the time that description in the answer was made, that I owned that Potrero. I would not be too positive about it, however. I owned special locations 14 and 12 when the partition suit was commenced, and at the time I became a member of the league the [319]tract described as No. 1 in. the complaint was within the boundaries of special location No. 14, and the tract described as No. 2 in the complaint was within the boundaries of special location No. 12.”