Alvarado v. Nordholt
Before: Haven
Synopsis
Adverse Possession—Co-tenancy—Questions of Fact.—Whether a party, claiming title to land by adverse possession, entered into the possession acknowledging himself to be a co-tenant, or whether he entered claiming the whole title, and whether his possession thereafter was adverse and of snch notoriety that his alleged co-tenants must he presumed to have known of his exclusive ownership, are questions of fact for the trial court to determine from all the circumstances.
Id. — Evidence of Ouster of Co-tenant — Entry under Administrator’s Deed—Notice of Exclusive Ownership. —Evidence that the defendants in an action of ejectment, and their predecessors, received all the rents of the property, and paid all taxes assessed against it, for over twenty years, and paid all street-improvement assessments charged thereon, and that the predecessor of the defendants entered under an administrator’s deed of the land, and always claimed to be the owner of the property, and that his claim was open and notorious, and generally known to the community, warrants the court in finding an ouster of alleged co-tenants, and that they had notice of his claims of exclusive ownership, and that his possession was adverse to them.
Id.—Statute' of Limitations — Disability — Infancy—Suspension op Statute. — Where a person who could have maintained an action to recover her interest in land during her lifetime dies, the running of the statute of limitations is not suspended during the minority of one who claims the property under the decedent.
Patent — Ejectment — Evidence — Offer of Proof—Publication of Notice of Survey after Patent — Objections to Survey. —An offer by the plaintiff, in an action of ejectment to recover land within the former pueblo of Los Angeles, to prove that there was no publication of notice of the survey and plat upon which was based the patent to the city of Los Angeles, under which the defendant claims, prior to the issuance of the patent, and that the United States surveyor-general published notice of the prior survey after the patent was issued, and that the city made objections to the survey, which were overruled, it being admitted that the city authorities did not then know of the issuance of the patent, and that they afterward demanded its delivery, is properly rejected. Such evidence does not show a non-acceptance of the patent by the city, or that it did not pass the legal title, although a subsequent patent for the same land was issued and delivered to the city.
Id.—Effect of Patent — Record — Vesting of Title—Presumption of Acceptance. — When a United States patent is signed, sealed, and recorded in the records of the land-office, the title to the land therein described is transferred to the grantee, as far as the government is concerned, and its acceptance by the grantee will be conclusively presumed, unless, immediately upon knowledge of its issue, his refusal to accept it is explicitly declared, and such refusal is communicated to the land-office.
De Haven, J. Action to recover possession of an undivided interest in a certain lot in the city of Los Angeles, which plaintiff claims to own in common with four of the defendants, the other. defend ants being tenants of these four.
The plaintiff claims title to a portion of the interest sought to be recovered by him by inheritance from his grandfather, Francisco Javier Alvarado, and to the remaining portion by purchase from certain heirs of the same person.
The answer denied plaintiff’s alleged ownership, and also contained a plea of the statute of limitations.
The court found that plaintiff was not the owner of any interest in the property, and also that his cause of action is barred by section 318 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and thereupon judgment was entered in favor of defendants.
The plaintiff insists that the findings of the court are not sustained by the evidence.
The land in controversy is within the limits of the former pueblo of Los Angeles. No written evidence of title in plaintiff’s grandfather was produced, but it was shown that he occupied the premises as a house-lot from 1817 until the date of his death in 1831, and that his widow continued in the occupation thereof until her death in 1851. It was also proven that there is not to be found in the archives of the city of Los Angeles, the successor to the pueblo, any record of titles or grants made by the pueblo prior to 1828, and that there are no formal municipal records of the pueblo of a date prior [126]to 1832. If it should be assumed that these facts are sufficient upon which to base the presumption contended for by plaintiff, that the pueblo of Los Angeles did, in fact, grant to his grandfather the lana m controversy, and that the written evidence thereof had been lost or destroyed, still if the court was right in its findings that defendants have acquired title by adverse possession, the judgment must be affirmed, and this question we proceed to consider.
As we understand this record, the grandfather of plaintiff left surviving him a widow, ten children, and grandchildren of a deceased daughter. The widow with some of her children continued to occupy the land in controversy from the death of her husband in 1831 until her own death in 1851. Proceedings for administration upon her estate were commenced in 1859, and the land was appraised as property belonging to it, and was sold by the administrator of said estate to one William Nordholt, and this sale being confirmed by the probate court, the said Nordholt received the administrator’s deed therefor on February 14, 1866, and thereafter continued in possession of the land so conveyed until his death in 1885, at which time the defendants succeeded to his title. It is claimed by appellant that as the widow of his grandfather was only the owner of an undivided interest in this land at the time of her death, her children and grandchildren having, succeeded to the remaining portion of her husband’s estate, the effect of the administrator’s deed was only to convey such interest as she had, and that said Nordholt thereupon became a tenant in common with the children of such widow, the remaining heirs of the elder Alvarado. Conceding this to be so, we think the evidence was sufficient to justify the court in finding that said Nordholt entered into possession, and there after, until his death, continued to hold the same, claiming the whole of said land as his own, and to show an ouster of his co-tenants within the rule announced by this court in the cases of Unger v. Mooney, 63 Cal. 586;
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)