Allen v. McKay & Co.
California Supreme Court
Mastick, Belcher & Mastick, and W. B. Treadwell, for Appellants. The assessment for 1889 did not refer to the patent for description, and was void for uncertainty. An assessment which does not sufficiently describe the property is not one which the adverse possessor is bound to pay. (Harvey v. Meyer, 117 Cal. 60.) A sufficient description must appear from the assessment, else it is fatally defective.
Read the full summary
Mastick, Belcher & Mastick, and W. B. Treadwell, for Appellants. The assessment for 1889 did not refer to the patent for description, and was void for uncertainty. An assessment which does not sufficiently describe the property is not one which the adverse possessor is bound to pay. (Harvey v. Meyer, 117 Cal. 60.) A sufficient description must appear from the assessment, else it is fatally defective. (People v. Mahoney, 55 Cal. 286; Ronkendorf v. Taylor’s Lessee, 4 Pet. 350, 362.) The user of the tide-lands in controversy with booms, under a claim of adverse right, constituted a disseisin.…
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.
recovered judgment in the court below for the possession of certain land in Humboldt County, and two thousand dollars damages for the withholding of the same, and defendants appeal from such judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial. The land was state tide-land, and as such was conveyed by the state of California to one Charles E. Collins, by patent dated August 29, 1861, and the plaintiffs have, by mesne conveyances, acquired the record title thereto. The defendants rely entirely upon title by prescription or adverse possession, pleading section 318 of the Code of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Allen v. McKay & Co.California Supreme Court · 1898
- People v. San Francisco Sav. UnionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- People v. Stockton & Copperopolis R.R.California Supreme Court · 1874
3Cited by10 opinions
- Family Service Agency of Santa Barbara v. AmesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Savings & Loan Society v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Spring Valley Water Co. v. County of AlamedaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Beckers v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
- Houghton v. Market-Street Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1905
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.