City of Napa v. Howland

Dedication of Levee and Street — Designation upon City Map— Ejectment by Municipal Corporation — Findings — Evidence — Review upon Appeal. —In an action of ejectment brought by a city, where the court finds that the land sued for had been dedicated by the owners for the use of the public as a levee and street, and the finding is sustained by the evidence, a judgment in favor of the city is supported by such finding; and a subsequent finding that the land, by the direction of the owners, had, after such dedication, been so designated on the maps of the city, is immaterial, and may be excluded from consideration upon appeal, although not supported by the evidence.

Id.—Evidence — Maps not Made by Owner — Waiver of Objection. — Where recorded maps produced upon the question of dedication are admitted subject to further proof that they were made and recorded by a real owner of the land, or for a limited purpose as explanatory diagrams, objection is waived if there is no motion to strike them out for want of further evidence, and no exception is taken to their admission, and they are referred to on the argument of the case by both parties in considering and discussing their effect as evidence on the question of dedication.

Id. — Map Made at Request of Owner. —■ A map made and recorded at request of a former owner of the premises is admissible as evidence against his grantees upon the question of dedication by the former owner.

Id.—Dedication for Public “Landing”—“Levee.” — Evidence showing a dedication of land for a public landing will support a finding of a dedication as a public levee and for street purposes. The word “ levee, ” as applied to portions of the public highways bordering on navigable streams and sloughs in interior cities and towns, has the same meaning as landing.

Id.—Dedication by Mexican Grantee — Estoppel — After-acquired Title. — If it be assumed that the owner of an unconfirmed Mexican grant had no title to the lands at the time he dedicated a levee and street to public use, he and his grantees are nevertheless estopped from denying the fact of dedication; and a title subsequently acquired by confirmation of the grant by the board of land commissioners and patent from the United States feeds the estoppel.

Ejectment — Parties — Landlord and Tenant — Action against Landlord — Demand of Possession — Admission. — Where the defendant in an action of ejectment, upon being served with a notice demanding possession of the premises, admitted that he held possession of the property, but refused to surrender it, it is not necessary that a tenant from mouth to month, to whom he had rented the property, be made a party defendant to the action.