City of Eureka v. Gates

California Supreme Court Feb 9, 1898 No. S. F. No. 645Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a municipal corporation may maintain an action of ejectment to recover possession of a street, but that the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the defendant's cross-complaint seeking to reform deeds involving the property.

Issues

Whether a municipal corporation may maintain an action of ejectment to recover possession of a street.
Whether the defendant was entitled to file a cross-complaint to reform deeds affecting the property in dispute.
Whether the cross-complaint improperly united causes of action or failed to properly join necessary parties.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“an action of ejectment may be maintained by a municipal corporation for the recovery of possession of a street wrongfully possessed by an individual, whether the corporation owns the fee, or the adjoining proprietor retains it.”

“The judgment should be reversed and cause remanded, with directions to the court below to overrule the demurrer to the cross-complaint.”

Synopsis

Dedication of Street and Alley—Ejectment by Municipal Corporation —Ownership of Fee Immaterial.—If the owner of the fee has dedicated a street and alley to public use, and the dedication has been accepted by the city in which the street and alley are situated, such city may maintain ejectment to recover possession thereof as against the owner of the fee, though' the city may claim only an easement in the street and alley for public use.

Id.—Gross-complaint—Parties — Reformation of Boundaries in Deeds— Striking Out Reference to Street and Alley.—Where it was claimed in an action of ejectment by the city that the defendant had dedicated a street and alley to public uses by description of boundaries in two conveyances made by the defendant, the defendant is entitled to file a cross-complaint, and to bring in as new parties each of the grantees named in such deeds, and to seek a reformation thereof so as to strike therefrom recitals referring to such street or alley.

Id.—Bringing in New Parties.—Where new parties are necessary for the determination of the issues raised by a cross-complaint, they may and should be brought in.

Td.—Union of Causes—Reformation of Two Conveyances—Response to Plaintiff’s Cause of Action.—A cross-complaint may be filed where the defendants seek affirmative relief affecting the property to •which the cause of action relates; and where the action was to recover possession of two separate parcels of land comprising a street and alley, and the affirmative relief sought by the defendant related to and affected each of these parcels of land, the defendant is entitled to interpose, by way of answer and cross-complaint, any defense as to either or both of the parcels, and to ask any affirmative relief necessary and proper for such defense; and may seek the reformation of two separate and distinct conveyances upon which plaintiff .relies as indicating a dedication of such street and alley.

BELCHER, C. This is an action of ejectment to recover possession of two parcels of land situate in the city of Eureka, the first parcel described as one hundred and twenty feet long and sixty feet wide, and being that part of Tenth street which lies between I and J streets, and the second parcel described as one hundred and six feet long and twenty feet wide, and as being an alley..

The defendant answered the complaint, denying all its averments, and also filed a cross-complaint to which a demurrer was interposed and sustained.

When the cause came on for trial the attorneys for the respective parties stipulated as to the facts of the case, and the court adopted the stipulations and found the facts to be as therein stated. And as conclusions of law therefrom the court found; “1. That the land described in the complaint was dedicated to the public by the owner thereof and accepted by the city of Eureka as and for a street and alley, and the same now constitutes a part of a public street and alley in said city; 2. That plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the property described in the complaint and to judgment for costs.”

Judgment was accordingly so entered, and from it the defendant appealed.

The facts, as shown by the stipulation and findings, are in substance as follows; That on and before the seventh day of April, 1881, the defendant was the owner in fee of a described piece of land, situate in the city of Eureka, which included the parcels in controversy.

[56]That on or about the seventh clay of April, 1881, while defendant was the owner of said land, she sold and conveyed, by a bargain and sale deed, to G. 11. Close a portion thereof described in the deed as follows: “Commencing at the northeast corner of Tenth and I streets in the said city of Eureka, and running thence north along the easterly line of I street one hundred and twenty-three feet; thence in an easterly direction one hundred and ten feet, more or less, to an alley; thence in a southerly direction parallel with I street along the westerly line of said alley one hundred and six feet to the northerly line of Tenth street; thence at right angles westerly along the northerly line of Tenth street one hundred and ten feet to the placo of beginning”; which deed was duly recorded.

That on or about the third day of December, 1885, while defendant was the owner of said land, she sold and conveyed, by a bargain and sale deed, to Le Eoy J. Gates a portion thereof described in the deed as follows: “Commencing at the southeast corner of Tenth and I streets, and running from thence south along the east line of 1 street twenty-six feet, more or less, to my south boundary on said street; thence at right angles east one hundred and twenty feet; thence at right angles north, twenty-six more or less feet to the south line of Tenth street; thence westerly on the south line of Tenth street one hundred and twenty feet to the place of beginning”; which deed was duly recorded.

City of Eureka v. Gates

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief