Legal Opinion

City of San Francisco v. Straut

California Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1890No. 12746PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.

The only question on this appeal is, whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations. Confessedly it is so barred, unless the title of plaintiff was charged with a public trust, and for that reason not subject to extinguishment by adverse possession, under the statute of limitations.

The action is ejectment, for the recovery of one of the beach and water lots of San Francisco. It was found that the defendant Straut, and his lessor, Boyd, had been in the continuous, open, notorious, adverse possession of the lot for twelve and a half years next before the commencement…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hoadley v. City & County of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
  2. City of San Francisco v. CalderwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  3. County of Yolo v. BarneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  4. Holladay v. FrisbieCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. People v. California Fish Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  2. Patton v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Forestier v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
  4. People v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Richert v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

9 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