Bliss v. Ellsworth
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Sonoma County. This was an action to compel the defendants, Ellsworth, Tuttle, Cutter, and Hinkle, who were the Trustees of the City of Petaluma, to convey by sufficient deed to the plaintiffs the north one hundred and thirty-four feet of Block X (according to Brewster’s Survey) of the City of Petaluma, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Congress of March 1st, 1867, entitled “An Act to quiet title to…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Sonoma County. This was an action to compel the defendants, Ellsworth, Tuttle, Cutter, and Hinkle, who were the Trustees of the City of Petaluma, to convey by sufficient deed to the plaintiffs the north one hundred and thirty-four feet of Block X (according to Brewster’s Survey) of the City of Petaluma, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Congress of March 1st, 1867, entitled “An Act to quiet title to land in the Towns of Santa Clara and Petaluma, in the State of California,” (H. S. Stats, at Large, 1866-7, p. 418.)…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Sprague, J. :
As between plaintiffs and defendant Stockdale, which was in the “bona fide occupancy” of the premises in controversy on the first day of March, 1867, seems to be the only question involved in this case in the Court below and on this appeal.
In the Court below, the cause was submitted to the Court upon an agreed statement of facts and an affidavit of one Sweetland, which was read in evidence in behalf of plaintiff's without objection, and the findings of the Court upon the facts and evidence so submitted answer the above question of bona fide occupation of the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Scott v. Sierra Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1885