Acker

The first finding is a general verdict. The additional findings •are a special verdict. In such case the special finding prevails over the general one. (Leese v. Clark, 20 Cal. 387 ; McDermott v. Higby, 23 Ibid., 489.)

James B. Townsend, for the Respondent.

The Court can only consider the ultimate facts found. (Pico v. Cuyas, 47 Cal. 178 .) The additional findings can have no ■effect as against the original findings, because they are nowhere •stated to contain all the facts, nor all the material facts which were proved on the trial.

It is nowhere stated or shown that the only proof by which defendants established that they were “ seized in fee,” was the proof which is briefly sketched in said “ additional findings.” So far as shown by said “ additional findings,” or by the record herein, said defendants may have established their “ seizin ” and right of possession by a title other than and paramount to that of the “Bodega Grant”; or by conveyances other than those made by said guardian, Tyler Curtis; or by deeds or other acts of confirmation of said guardian’s sales, executed by said minor •after attaining his majority. Nothing to the contrary of these several suppositions is…