Legal Opinion

City of Sacramento v. Clunie

California Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1898No. Sac. No. 249PublishedCited by 37 opinions

' APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County and from an Order denying a new trial. A. P. Catlin, Judge. The facts are stated iu the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

This is an action of ejectment brought hy the city of Sacramento to recover the possession of certain lands •claimed to be public streets. The city’s right to recover is based upon an alleged dedication hy the owners to the public as streets. Defendant, and his grantors have been in the adverse and exclusive possession thereof, claiming title thereto, for more than forty years, and have erected improvements thereon to the value of at least twenty thousand dollars. The trial court found as a fact that the lands described in the complaint were never dedicated to public use, and rendered…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. City of L.A. v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
  2. Prescott v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Schmitt v. City of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Universal Sales Corp. v. California Press Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  2. City of Long Beach v. MansellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Farrell v. County of PlacerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  4. King v. StanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Smith v. BanghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API