Ames

Ames v. City of San Diego

Bad Law
101 Cal. 390·1894 Cal. LEXIS 1046·35 P. 1005
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 1894No. 19291California1,442 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haven, J.

The plaintiffs are husband and wife, and this action was brought for the purpose of determining an adverse claim made by the defendant to certain land which, the complaint alleges, is owned by the plaintiff, Catalina S. Ames. The answer alleges that the defendant is the owner of the land in controversy, and this was the only issue made by the pleadings. The action was tried by the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs. The defendant appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying its motion for a new trial. It is claimed by the defendant that the findings do not support the judgment, and also that the finding in respect to the plaintiffs’ adverse possession is not justified by the evidence.

The court did not find, in direct terms, that the plaintiff, Catalina A. Ames, is the owner of the land in dispute, but it found the following among other facts:

The foregoing finding numbered two, although somewhat informal, was evidently intended as a finding to the effect that the plaintiffs had, before the commencement of this action, acquired title to the premises in controversy by adverse possession, and that such is its proper construction is not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.