gno.law

Central Pacific Railroad v. Mead

California Supreme Court · · 1883-01-31 · Published · 63 Cal. 112 · 1883 Cal. LEXIS 373

CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. A. MEAD

Area
civil
Panel
Ross (author)

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion — Ross

Ross, J.

The true and only paper title to the land in dispute is, and since March 17, 1875, has been in the plaintiff, as evidenced by a United States patent of that date. The plea of the defendant was the Statute of Limitations, and he relied upon adverse possession of the property for five years immediately preceding the commencement of the action as constituting a bar to the plaintiff’s action to recover it.

There was evidence given on the trial tending to show an offer on the part of defendant to purchase the property from the plaintiff within the period of five years next preceding the commencement of the action. Such an offer, if made, was a clear recognition of plaintiff’s title, and a perfect answer to the defendant’s claim of adverse possession. (Lovell v. Frost, 44 Cal. 474; Tyler on Ejectment, 921.) An offer to purchase the property from the party having the legal title to it does not come within the doctrine of the case of Cannon v. Stockman, 36 Cal. 535, and of kindred cases.

Order affirmed.

McKinstey, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

Hearing in bank denied.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by