Rice

The question in this case is, whether a strip of land about sixty feet wide on the southerly side of ten acre lot number 164 of the lands of the Southern California Association, south of Riverside, is part of a public highway. .

It was admitted at the trial that the land was within the boundaries of the Jurupa ranch, that a patent to the ranch had been issued by the United States government on May 23, 1879, and that the plaintiff derived his title to the ten acre lot from the patentee. And the court found:

No attack is made upon the findings. The prominent fact then, as found by the court, and with which we have to deal, is user of the land as part of a public highway. It is well settled that adverse occupancy and use of land as a public highway, for a period of time equal to that prescribed by the statute of limitations for bringing ejectment, will justify the presumption of a dedication to the public: Cincinnati v. White, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 431, 8 L. Ed. 452 ; Onstott v. Murray, 22 Iowa, 459 ; Geberling v. Wunnerberg, 51 Iowa, 125 , 49 N. W. 861 ; Reed v. Northfield, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 94, 23 Am. Dec. 662 ; San Francisco v. Scott, 4 Cal. 114 ; Harding v. Jasper, 14 Cal. 642 . Here…