Tappendorff v. Downing

18 P. 247, 76 Cal. 169, 1888 Cal. LEXIS 848

• Court: California Supreme Court
• Decided: May 19, 1888
• Docket: No. 11388
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.

Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.