Martin

The action was brought to quiet title to a certain parcel of land in the city of Stockton. The defendants answered and filed a cross-complaint, by which it appears that they claim title to a portion of the property, the city claiming a conditional fee, and Kile the reversionary interest, but both disclaiming any interest or claim in or to the residue of the land described in plaintiff’s complaint. The court found in accordance with the contention of defendants and cross-complainants, and from the judgment in their favor the appeal has been taken. The trial judge, Honorable J. A. Plummer, gave careful consideration to the questions involved and he filed a written opinion which presents a clear and comprehensive view of the law of the case, and we adopt it as the opinion of this court, as follows:

To the authorities cited by Judge Plummer we may add: Howard v. Oroville School District, 22 Cal. App. 544 , [ 135 Pac. 689 ], and Daly City v. Holbrook, 39 Cal. App. 326 , [ 178 Pac. 725 ].

In considering the foregoing opinion of the trial judge, it must, of course, be understood that his attention was directed to the question of whether title by prescription could be acquired as…