Madden
Madden v. Ashman
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Temple, J.
— This is an action to recover real estate. The complaint is in the usual form. The answer contains a general and specific denial and also a plea of the statute of limitations.
On the trial the plaintiff put in evidence a patent from the United States to John A. Sutter, dated within five years before the commencement of the action, and proved his deraignment under this patent and that defendants were in possession, and rested.
The defendants then put in evidence a deed from John A. Sutter to John A. Sutter, Jr., dated prior to the conveyance under which the plaintiff claims. They also proved their possession for thirteen years before suit was brought.
Plaintiffs, in rebuttal, put in evidence a deed from John A. Sutter, Jr., to Mesick, dated after the deed from Sutter, Sr., to Sutter, Jr., and prior to a deed from Mesick to plaintiffs, which was also put in evidence.
This deed purports to convey a lot in San Francisco and also two certain “grants made by the Mexican government to John Augustus Sutter, the one by John B. Alvarada for eleven leagues, the other made by Micheltoreno, calling for twenty-two leagues of land. ’ ’