Fraser v. Ott

California Supreme Court Aug 19, 1892 No. No. 14785Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a deed conveying the 'north two acres' of a block refers to the land exclusive of the adjacent street, as the term 'block' refers to the area enclosed by streets rather than the area including the street center. Consequently, the trial court's original judgment for the plaintiff was correct, and the order granting a new trial was improper.

Issues

Whether a conveyance of the 'north two acres' of a block includes the land to the center of the adjacent street.
Whether the trial court erred in granting a motion for a new trial after finding the plaintiff owned the north two acres exclusive of the street.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court therefore rightly found that appellant was the owner of the north two acres of block 13, exclusive of the street”

“It results, in our opinion, that the court erred in granting the motion for new trial, and that the order should be reversed.”

Synopsis

Boundary — Center of Highway — Presumption — Effect of Deed.— An owner of land bounded by a road or street is presumed to own to the center of the way, and when one conveys land bounded by a highway, he passes his title to the center of the highway, subject to the public easement, unless a different intent appears from the grant.

Id. —Grant of Two Acres of Block Adjoining Street — Description — Measurement of Quantity. — A conveyance of two acres of a block adjoining a street passes title to half of the adjoining street, subject to the public easement; but it does not necessarily follow that the two acres must be measured by going to the center of the street; and if the deed describes the blocks as four-acre blocks, which appears to be the size of the blocks, exclusive of the adjoining streets, the description of the north two acres of a specified block in effect describes the north half thereof, exclusive of the street, especially where the deed describes a right of way as conveyed over the east end of the south half of the same block.

Id.—Definition of “Block.” — A “block” is a square or portion of a city inclosed by streets, whether occupied by buildings or composed of vacant lots, and this is the meaning of the word as used in a conveyance of the north two acres of a four-acre block.

Belcher, C. This is an action to quiet the plaintiff’s title to a parcel of land, and the material facts, shown by the record, are as follows: —

On July 29, 1889, one George B. Lyon was thp owner of a block of land situate in the town of Santa Ana East, in the county of Orange, and on that day conveyed to the plaintiff, by a bargain and sale deed, a portion thereof, described as follows: “ The same being the north two acres of block Ho. thirteen (13) of the Western Development Company’s four (4) acre blocks in the town of Santa Ana East, as per map of said Santa Ana East recorded in book 10, pages 43 and 44, of the miscellaneous records of Los Angeles County, California; also the right of way, for street purposes only, over twenty feet of land off the [662]east end of the south half of said block 13 in said town of Santa Ana East aforesaid.!’

Immediately after executing the aforesaid deed, Lyon executed and delivered to defendant D. A. Ott a contract, by which he bound himself to sell and convey to Ott the balance of the said block upon certain terms and conditions.

The block in question is one of fifteen adjoining blocks, laid out by the Western Development Company, and is bounded on the west and south by streets sixty feet wide. Measuring to the center of these streets, it contains 4.65 acres, but excluding the streets it contains 4.04 acres only.

Lyon died before this action was commenced, but his contract with Ott remained in full force, and was binding upon his legal representatives and heirs when the case was tried.

In his complaint the plaintiff alleged that he was the owner and in possession of the north half of the said block, together with the right of way for street purposes over twenty feet of land off the east end of the south half thereof; that the defendants, L>. A. Ott and the executors and heirs of Lyon, and each of them, claimed an estate or interest in the said premises adverse to the plaintiff, but that they had no estate or interest therein, and théir said claims were without any right whatever.

By his answer, the defendant Ott denied that the plaintiff was in possession of, or had any title to, or any estate or interest in, the land and premises described in his complaint; and further denied that defendant’s claim to the said land was without right. And for a further and separate answer, the said defendant then set up his contract with Lyon, and alleged that under and by virtue of said contract he 'claimed an interest in all of the said block of land, except the north two acres thereof, and that he claimed no interest or estate of any kind in or to the said north two acres, and no interest adverse to the plaintiff to the right of way for street purposes, while

Fraser v. Ott

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief