Tate v. City of Sacramento

California Supreme Court

Tate v. City of Sacramento

50 Cal. 242, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 133

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1875

DocketNo. 4418

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 50 Cal. 242 (Tate v. City of Sacramento) 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

Tate v. City of Sacramento, 50 Cal. 242, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 133 (Cal. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

At the commencement of the action the plaintiff was and for many years had been in the actual occupation of the premises in controversy. His possession was prima facie evidence of title, and must be presumed to have been rightful until the contrary appears. But the defendant contends that the land on which the plaintiff’s buildings stand constitutes a part of Third street, north of I street, and that the buildings are a public nuisance, which the city authorities may lawfully remove. In support of this claim it was incumbent on the defendant to show affirmatively that Third street north of I street had been dedicated as a public street. Without discussing the evidence in detail, we deem it sufficient to say on this point that it does not satisfactorily appear, nor does the referee find, that Third street, north of I, was ever dedicated as a public street.

Order and judgment affirmed.

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

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

At the commencement of the action the plaintiff was and for many years had been in the actual occupation of the premises in controversy. His possession was prima facie evidence of title, and must be presumed to have been rightful until the contrary appears. But the defendant contends that the land on which the plaintiff’s buildings stand constitutes a part of Third street, north of I street, and that the buildings are a public nuisance, which the city authorities may lawfully remove. In support of this claim it was incumbent on the defendant to show affirmatively that Third street north of I street had been dedicated as a public street. Without discussing the evidence in detail, we deem it sufficient to say on this point that it does not satisfactorily appear, nor does the referee find, that Third street, north of I, was ever dedicated as a public street.

Order and judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Cal. 242, 1875 Cal. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tate-v-city-of-sacramento-cal-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack