Weyle

Weyle v. Center

Good Law
1 Cal. Unrep. 310
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 16, 1866No. 762California1,505 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sandebson, J.

This is an action to recover Lot No. 2, in what, as claimed by the plaintiff, is called the Foley tract, in the city of San Francisco. The action is founded upon prior possession under the Van Ness ordinance. The plaintiff claims under a series of conveyances commencing with Michael Foley, who was, as he alleges, the first possessor, while the defendant claims under John Wilson as the prior possessor. The alleged prior possession of Foley dates from 1850, and that of Wilson from June, 1853.

Several exceptions were taken to the admission in evidence of the various deeds in the plaintiff’s chain of title, which under the view which we take of the controlling question in the case (prior possession), we deem it unnecessary to notice. Those'deeds are of no consequence unless it be shown that Foley was in the actual prior possession of lot No. 2, within the meaning of the Van Ness ordinance, and we are of the opinion that the plaintiff has utterly failed to show that fact.

Who was in possession of lot No. 2, on or before the first day of January, 1855, within the meaning of the Van Ness ordinance, would seem to be a fact requiring but little evidence to establish. That ordinance was…

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.