Oglesby v. City of Santa Barbara

California Supreme Court Nov 29, 1897 No. L. A. No. 151Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that in an action to enjoin a city from encroaching on private property, the plaintiffs' possession constitutes prima facie evidence of title, and the city bears the burden of proving the land was dedicated as a public street. Where evidence regarding the location of street lines is in conflict, the trial court's findings based on credible survey evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.

Issues

Whether the burden of proof lies with the city to justify encroachment upon land possessed by plaintiffs.
Whether the trial court's determination of street boundary lines based on conflicting survey evidence is subject to reversal on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“plaintiff’s possession was prima facie evidence of title, and must be presumed to be rightful until the contrary appears.”

“Nothing short of clear proof by defendants, uncontradicted by plaintiffs’ evidence, that the street lines were where defendants claimed, could defeat plaintiffs’ action.”

Synopsis

Injunction—Action to Restbain City feom Gbading Lands of Plaintiff-Dispute as to Location of Stbebt—Pbima Facie Evidence—Bubden of Pboof—Showing to Wabbant Reveesal.—In an action to restrain a city from entering upon the lands of plaintiffs for the purpose of grading a street, where there is evidence tending to show that plaintiffs had both title and possession of the disputed strip, over which the city claimed that the street should he located, and that the street as actually located and used by the public for more than twenty years, was an open street of sixty feet in width, by which plaintiff’s lot was bounded, and on both sides of which lots were fenced in during that period, the burden is on the city to overcome such prima facie evidence of title in plaintiff to the disputed strip of land, by clear proof of the title of the city thereto, and such proof must be uncontradicted by plaintiff’s evidence, in order to warrant reversal of a judgment for the plaintiffs.

. In.—Conflicting Evidence—Lines of Stbeet Established by Subvey— Subsequent Subvey—Findings—Appeal.—Where the evidence is conflicting as to the true original location of the street in controversy, but there is evidence tending to show an actual survey of the street by the town surveyor, taking the admitted base and initial point of the original survey, and that the fences and improvements on both sides of the street were made in accordance with such survey, leaving the street of full width, proof of a subsequent survey by another town surveyor, showing a different location of the street, only raises a conflict of evidence, and a finding of the court as to the correctness of the prior survey, having support in the evidence, cannot be disturbed upon appeal.

Id.—Two Methods of Subvey—Pbovince of Coubt.—The court, having the facts before it as to two methods of ascertaining the lines of the street, had the right to judge as to which method of survey was the most satisfactory, and nearest in conformity with the actual original location; hut it is not for the appellate court to determine that the true location of the street must in all cases be ascertained in the method approved by the trial court.

CHIPMAN, C. Action to restrain defendants from entering upon block 56^, in the city of Santa Barbara, which it is alleged in the complaint defendants threaten to do for the purpose of grading Laguna street, on which said block fronts, and from excavating and removing soil from said block and removing plaintiffs’ fences inclosing the same. By stipulation, the case entitled Julia Gr. Baker versus the same defendants was tried upon the same evidence as that first above mentioned, and is here by the same transcript, both to be heard and determined as governed by the same questions of law and fact. The court gave judgment for plaintiffs, and the appeals are from the judgment and from the order denying defendants’ motion for new trial and upon a statement. The court found, and it is not denied, that the streets and blocks of said city, vhen a town, in 1851, were surveyed and platted upon a map by one Salisbury Haley, and that said survey was then adopted as the official survey and map of said city, by which plaintiff's block 56£ is bounded on the southwest by Laguna street; that plaintiffs are and were the owners when the action was commenced and seised in fee of said block, being one hundred and fifty yards square, and that they were and had been by themselves and through their predecessors for twenty years continuously in the exclusive occupation and possession of the premises as described in the complaint (the complaint describes the block by metes and bounds, commencing at a certain intersection of Micheltorena and Laguna streets and as inclosed, the inclosure taking in the disputed strip); that the premises have been inclosed since the year 1875 with a substantial fence; that Laguna street is an open street sixty feet wide, upon which said block fronts, running from Victoria street to Pedregosa street, in reference to which said Laguna street lots were fenced on both sides, and said street had been traveled by plaintiff and the public for more than twenty years, “but the city of Santa Barbara or its predecessors have not acquiesced in the location of said open street as constituting the true location of Laguna street according to the official map and survey of said city hy Salisbury Haley”; that defendants threaten, and will, if not restrained, excavate from the soil and grade and appropriate a portion of plaintiffs’ premises, to wit, a strip about six feet in width fronting on said street; that a number of lots abutting [116]on said street “have on them trees and shrubbery, residences, and other improvements, which to a great extent constitute the beauty and attractions of said thoroughfare”; that said strip of land and the improvements thereon are not embraced within the lines of Laguna street, as the same was dedicated to public use in 1851 by said city by the so-called Haley survey. The controversy involves the integrity of the lines of Laguna street for a long distance and the residence property of many lotowners—the disputed strip varying from six to thirteen feet wide.

Oglesby v. City of Santa Barbara

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief