Payne v. English (1894) · DecisionDepot

Payne v. English

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jan 3, 1894 No. No. 15269Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's finding that the disputed 30-foot strip of land was not part of Channel street was supported by the evidence, and that the established location of Berry street serves as a conclusive boundary for the plaintiffs' property.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding that the disputed strip of land was not part of Channel street was justified by the evidence.
Whether the established location of Berry street can be used to determine the boundaries of the plaintiffs' property.

Disposition. affirmed

Synopsis

Deed—Boundary—Subsequent Location op Street.—Where a deed described the premises granted, as being on the line of a street which was practically located after the deed was made, such location may be looked to for the purpose of determining the location of the land granted, and when such street was established, built upon, accepted, recognized, and used by the city authorities and the public, it became a street of the city and presumably the street referred to in the deed.

Belcher, C. This is the second appeal in this case. On the first appeal the judgment, which was in favor of [11]the defendants, was reversed and a new trial ordered. (79 Cal. 540.) The second trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs, and the present appeal is from an order denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

The facts of the case are very fully stated in the opinion rendered on the former appeal, and need not be repeated here at length.

The plaintiffs allege that they are, and for more than thirty years have been, the owners of that certain lot or parcel of land in the city and county of San Francisco, bounded by Berry, Channel, Third, and Fourth streets, and having a width between the two first-named streets of 275 feet, and a length between the two last named of 825 feet.

The defendants in their answer admit that the plaintiffs are the owners of the lot or parcel of land described in their complaint, except a strip of the uniform width of 30 feet, extending along the southeasterly side thereof; and they allege that this strip of land is, and for more than 30 years has been, a portion of Channel street, and that plaintiffs have not now and never had any right, title or interest therein or thereto.

The court found that the original plaintiffs were, at the commencement of the action, and for more than 30 years prior thereto they and those under whom they claim had been, the owners of that certain lot or parcel of land particularly described in the complaint; “that no portion of said lot or parcel of land is, or ever was, a part of Channel street”; and “that the southerly portion of said lot or parcel of land, mentioned and referred to in the answer of defendants, as a strip of the uniform width of 30 feet, and extending from Third street to Fourth street, being a distance of 825 feet, is not and never was a portion of Channel street.”

Whether this finding as to the 30 foot strip was justified or not is the principal question presented for decision.

The deed, under which the plaintiffs claimed title, was executed in 1852, and described the premises con[12]

Payne v. English

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief