Howell v. Rogers
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Ejectment to recover fifty-vara lot, 1,476, in the city and county of San Francisco.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twelfth Judicial District, City and County of San Francisco. Ejectment to recover fifty-vara lot, 1,476, in the city and county of San Francisco. The answer set up the Statute of Limitations, as follows: “For a further and separate answer defendant says, that neither the said plaintiff, nor his ancestors, predecessors or grantors, were Seized or possessed of the premises in the said complaint described, or any part thereof, at any time within five years before the commencement of this action. “For a further defense herein, the said defendant says that he and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
The grounds relied upon by the defendants for a reversal of the judgment are—first, that the plaintiff did not prove such a possession in himself or his grantors as to entitle him to the benefit of the Van Ness Ordinance; second, that the action was barred by the act of March 5th, 1864, commonly known as the “ Hawes Limitation Act.” (Statutes 1863-4, p. 149). On the first point it will suffice to say that it is untenable. The proof established a sufficient possession in the grantors of the plaintiff to entitle them to the benefit of the ordinance. The second point…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Spotts v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Spanish Fork City v. HopperUtah Supreme Court · 1891
- Whittaker v. GreenwoodUtah Supreme Court · 1898
- Gill v. Frances Inv. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1927