Payne

This is the second appeal in this case. On the first appeal the judgment, which was in favor of *11 the defendants, was reversed and a new trial ordered. ( 79 Cal. 540 .) The second trial resulted in a judgment for the plaintiffs, and the present appeal is from an order denying the defendants’ motion for a new trial.

The facts of the case are very fully stated in the opinion rendered on the former appeal, and need not be repeated here at length.

The plaintiffs allege that they are, and for more than thirty years have been, the owners of that certain lot or parcel of land in the city and county of San Francisco, bounded by Berry, Channel, Third, and Fourth streets, and having a width between the two first-named streets of 275 feet, and a length between the two last named of 825 feet.

The defendants in their answer admit that the plaintiffs are the owners of the lot or parcel of land described in their complaint, except a strip of the uniform width of 30 feet, extending along the southeasterly side thereof; and they allege that this strip of land is, and for more than 30 years has been, a portion of Channel street, and that plaintiffs have not now and never had any right, title…