People v. Pope

53 Cal. 437
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1879
DocketNo. 5739
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 53 Cal. 437 (People v. Pope) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Pope, 53 Cal. 437 (Cal. 1879).

Opinion

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

That East Street was duly dedicated as a public street can admit of no serious doubt, on the facts established at the trial, and it is not denied that at the time of the commencement of the action the defendants were, and for a long time prior thereto had been, using a portion of the street as a lumber yard, obstructing the same with piles of lumber, and preventing the use of it by the public as a highway.

[451]*451Apparently, the only defense seriously relied upon was the Statute of Limitations, the defendants claiming that they had been in the actual adverse occupation of the premises for more than ten years next before the commencement of the action. Assuming that the evidence proved such actual adverse occupation for ten years ór more, it must be considered as the settled doctrine of this Court, since, the decision in Hoadley v. San Francisco, 50 Cal. 265, that no one can acquire by adverse occupation, as against the public, the right to obstruct a street dedicated to public use, and thus prevent the use of it as a public highway.

Judgment and order affirmed, and it is further ordered that the judgment herein be entered as of the day on which the cause was submitted.

Mr. Justice McKinstry did not express any opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Abar v. Rogers
23 Cal. App. 3d 506 (California Court of Appeal, 1972)
City of Berkeley v. Gordon
264 Cal. App. 2d 461 (California Court of Appeal, 1968)
Guerra v. Packard
236 Cal. App. 2d 272 (California Court of Appeal, 1965)
People v. Chambers
233 P.2d 557 (California Supreme Court, 1951)
People v. Sayig
226 P.2d 702 (California Court of Appeal, 1951)
County of Sacramento v. Lauszus
70 Cal. App. 2d 639 (California Court of Appeal, 1945)
Carswell v. . Creswell
7 S.E.2d 58 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
People v. City of Los Angeles
218 P. 63 (California Court of Appeal, 1923)
Wheeler v. City of Oakland
170 P. 864 (California Court of Appeal, 1917)
People Ex Rel. State Bd. of Harbor Comm'rs v. Kerber
93 P. 878 (California Supreme Court, 1908)
Proctor v. City & County of San Francisco
100 F. 348 (Ninth Circuit, 1900)
Schneider v. Hutchinson
57 P. 324 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1899)
London & San Francisco Bank, Ltd. v. City of Oakland
86 F. 30 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1898)
Baldwin v. Trimble
36 L.R.A. 489 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1897)
Ames v. City of San Diego
35 P. 1005 (California Supreme Court, 1894)
People ex rel. Robarts v. Beaudry
27 P. 610 (California Supreme Court, 1891)
Ex parte Taylor
25 P. 258 (California Supreme Court, 1890)
Moose v. . Carson
10 S.E. 689 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1889)
Town of San Leandro v. Le Breton
13 P. 405 (California Supreme Court, 1887)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 Cal. 437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pope-cal-1879.