Tappendorff v. Downing
FREDERICK TAPPENDORFF v. WILLIAM DOWNING
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Hayne (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 — Hayne
Hayne, C.
In this case, we think that the land formed by accretion was part of the adjoining fractional quarter-section, and that, therefore, the accretion passed by the deeds conveying the fractional- quarter by its number. The statement of the quantity of land. conveyed by a deed is not controlling.
With reference to the statute of limitations, if we assume that the appellant’s specification is sufficient to raise the question (which is doubtful: See Barstow v. Newman, 34 Cal. 91; Goodrich v. Van Landigham, 46 Cal. 603), we do not think the evidence shows a case of adverse possession by the plaintiff for the requisite period. It may be that there was such possession; but the fact does not appear from the record.
Since the appellant has no title to the fractional quarter-section as it originally stood, or to the accretion, there can be no question as to a boundary line between the two.
We therefore advise that the judgment and order appealed from be affirmed.
*171Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.
The Court.
For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.
Cites, in this corpus
- Odd Fellows' Savings Bank v. Banton No. 3,742 · 1873-07-01
Cited by
- White v. State of California Civ. 28156 · 1971-12-02
- City of Oakland v. Buteau S. F. No. 7743. · 1919-02-28