Biddick v. Kobler
Synopsis
Quieting Title—Evidence—Townsite Patent—Trust for Occupants —Proof of Occupancy—Deed of Superior Judge not Conclusive. In an action to quiet title, where the land in controversy is part of a •townsite, which was surveyed and platted under section 2387 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and a patent was issued therefor to the superior judge, in trust for the occupants, which trust was administered by the superior judge under the act of the legislature of California, approved March 30, 1868, and the amendments thereof, a •deed of'the superior judge to the plaintiff, in so far as it includes land which had never been in the occupancy of the plaintiff, but which is shown to have been, at the time of the patent and prior to the application therefor, in the occupancy of the defendant, is not conclusive against the defendant; and the defendant is entitled to prove his occupancy and his right thereto as against the plaintiff.
Id.—Offer of Evidence—Improper Method—Presumption of Consent —Erroneous Ruling.—Although a mere general offer of evidence to prove a variety of things, without producing the witnesses or evidence whereby they are to be proved, is an improper method of presenting offered evidence, yet, where no objection is made to the form of the offer upon the ground that the offer was an improper method, but objection is only taken to the evidence offered, it will be presumed upon appeal that the method used in making the offer was by consent; and, if the evidence offered is improperly rejected, the judgment will be reversed for the erroneous ruling.
The Court. This action is prosecuted to quiet title to a small parcel of land claimed by the plaintiff to be a part of lot 3 in block 5 in the town of Crescent Mills, in Plumas county. The complaint is in the usual form.
The premises in controversy are within the townsite of Crescent Mills (an incorporated town), which was surveyed and platted in 1882 upon public lands of the United States, under the provisions of section 2387 of the United States Revised Statutes authorizing the judge of the county court to enter lands settled upon and occupied as a townsite, and for which a patent was issued by the United States, October 26, 1888, to the superior judge of said county, “in trust for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof according to their respective interests; the execution of which trust, as to the disposal of the lots in such town, and the proceeds of the sales thereof, to be conducted under such regulations as may be prescribed by the legislative authority of the state or territory in which the same may be situated.”
The statute under which said trust was administered was the act of our legislature, approved March 30,1868, and the amendments thereof, (For the original act see Stats. 1867-68, p. 692, and as amended see Stats. 1885, p. 115, or 1 Deering’s Codes, under sec. 4442, p. 723.)
The plaintiff claims under a deed executed by the superior judge January 7, 1890, which purports to convey to him lot 3 in block 5, “ as appears from the official plat of the survey of said townsite now on file and of record in the office of the county recorder of said Plumas county.”
The defendant, in addition to denials, alleged that for more than twenty-two years before the commencement of the action, and at the time the townsite was surveyed [195]and platted, he was, and ever since has been, the sole and exclusive occupant of the disputed premises, and that neither the plaintiff nor his grantor had ever been in the possession or occupation thereof; that in 1871 defendant inclosed his lot and erected a boundary or division fence between the lands of plaintiff and defendant, and inclosed within defendant’s inclosure the land in dispute; that plaintiff and his grantor agreed to and acquiesced in said boundary; that the said parcel in controversy had ever since remained inclosed as part of defendant’s lot, and cultivated and improved as such, adversely to the plaintiff, down to the present time, and that he had paid all taxes thereon.
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)