Jatunn v. Smith
Before: Haven
Synopsis
Prescription — Adverse User of Water—Public Lands — Grant from Government. —There can be no adverse possession of land, or adverse user of water to the natural flow of which such land is entitled, so long as the title to the land remains in the United States; but a prescriptive right to the use of water may be acquired after the legal title of such land has vested in a grantee of the government.
Id. — Grant to Central Pacific Railroad Company—Vesting of Title. —The grant of land to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, by the acts of Congress of July 1, 1862, and July 2, 1864, to aid in the construction of its road, was a grant in. prcesenti, passing the legal title to the lands granted as of the date of the grant, as soon as the sections were identified by a legal survey and the definite location of the road.
Id.—Patent for Railroad Land — Diversion of Water — Statute of Limitations. —As the legal title to land granted to the Central Pacific Railroad Company vested in the company upon identification of the land, and not at the date of the patent issued by the United States, the statute of limitations commenced to run in favor of one who diverted the waters of a stream upon the land after such identification and prior to the date of the patent, from the date of the diversion, as against the railroad company and its grantees.
Id.—Effect of Grant — Adverse Possession—Subsequent Patent.— When the legal title to land is granted by act of Congress, the title of the government is as effectively divested as it would be by the issuance of a patent therefor by the executive department under authority of law, and such land then becomes subject to the limitation laws of the state in which it is situated, and an adverse possession thereof, after the date of such grant for the requisite period fixed by such laws, will ripen into a legal title in favor of the adverse possessor, and the effect of such possession is not interrupted or defeated by the subsequent issuance of a patent therefor in pursuance of such act of Congress.
Id. — Recitals in Patent — Survey and Identification of Land Granted — Payment of Costs and Pees. — The recitals in the patent from the United States to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, showing that the line of the railroad was definitely located, and that the company afterward filed with the register and receiver at Sacramento a selection of the land under the acts of Congress, and that such selection was properly certified to or approved by such register and receiver, are sufficient proof of the fact that the land was at the date of its selection surveyed by authority of the United States, and identified as laud to which the grant made to the company had then attached, and that the costs of such survey and other fees required by law had been paid by such company.
De Haven, J. The plaintiff is the owner of a tract of land through which flows a stream of water known as Wolf Creek, and the defendants, more than five years prior to the commencement of this action, diverted the waters of said stream at a point above where it enters upon the land of plaintiff. This action is brought for the purpose of enjoining the defendants from hereafter taking or diverting any of the waters of said stream, and for a judgment that plaintiff is entitled to have the stream flow down its natural bed and across the land of plaintiff.
In their answer, the defendants allege that plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff was nonsuited, and from this judgment he appeals.
The land owned by plaintiff is an odd-numbered section, which was granted to the Central Pacific Railroad Company to aid in the construction of its road by the acts of Congress of July 1,1862 (12 U. S. Stats, at Large, 489), and July 2, 1864 (13 Stats, at Large, 356), and the patent therefor did not issue to the railroad company until April, 1884, which was less than five years before this action was brought. The railroad, however, was constructed from Sacramento to the Nevada state line, and fully completed and equipped in the manner prescribed by said acts of Congress, as early as November 3, 1869, and this fact was on that day properly certified to by the commissioners appointed by the President for the purpose of examining and reporting in relation to the construction of said road, as is shown by the recitals contained in the patent.
The title of plaintiff to the land owned by him is founded upon a deed executed to him by the Central [156]Pacific Railroad Company, in December, 1884, after it obtained its patent from the United States. The defendants diverted the waters of Wolf Creek in 1874, and it is not claimed by the appellant that the evidence given upon the trial in the superior court was insufficient to show that such diversion was thereafter continued under claim of right, and under such circumstances as to ripen into a prescriptive right in defendants, if the statute of limitations commenced to run in their favor prior to the date of the patent issued by the United States to his grantor, the railroad company.
The contention of appellant is, that the United States^ by its patent, conveyed to the railroad company the legal title to the land now owned by him, with all its natural riparian rights as they existed at the date of the definite location of the railroad, and that as defendants could not hold adversely to the United States, they can derive no advantage from their acts of diversion and user prior to the date of the United States patent.
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)