Baum

— I dissent from the judgment.

Mr. Justice Harrison, being disqualified, did not participate in the foregoing decision.

The following is the opinion above referred to, rendered in Department One on the 6th of February, 1892:—

This is an action of ejectment to recover a lot of land situate on the southeast corner of Van Ness Avenue and Turk Street, in the city and county of San Francisco. The answer denies plaintiff’s alleged ownership and right of possession of a certain portion of the lot described in the complaint, and sets up the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., secs. 318, 319.) There was a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and a judgment was entered thereon, from which the defendant has appealed.

The basis of plaintiff’s title is the prior possession of himself and his grantors. It is claimed by appellant that the evidence is insufficient to show that either the plaintiff or any of his grantors ever had the actual possession of the land. We have carefully examined the evidence in the record, and think there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

We do not think the court erred in excluding the inventory, or in rejecting the proffered testimony of…

— This cause was heard and decided in Department One. We are satisfied with the views therein expressed and the conclusion reached; but in support of the ruling of the court below in excluding the inventory offered in evidence by the defendant, we cite the follow *465 ing cases: Leighton v. Wike, 4 Serg. & R. 204; Aelclen’s Executor v. Hickman, 63 Ala. 494 . The rule in New York has been changed (Guy v. Mead, 22 N. Y. 466 ); but our code seems to indorse the rule followed in Pennsylvania and Alabama, and which formerly prevailed in New York. (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 2047.)

The judgment and order are affirmed.