McDonald

When this case was here upon the former appeal ( 101 Cal. 206 , 35 Pac. 643, 646 ) it appeared from the findings that “said bridge and all approaches thereto are located within the right of way in said deed described, and constitute part of the premises thereby granted to the California Central Railway Company”; and it was held that, by virtue of the conveyance from the plaintiff to the predecessor of the defendant, he had given a license for the maintenance of the bridge in the condition it was at the time of the conveyance. The cause was remanded for a new trial, and the *143 superior court has now found “that, at the time said deed was executed, the bridge described in plaintiff’s complaint, and referred to in the evidence, was not, nor was any part thereof, situated upon the lands of the plaintiff described in his complaint, or upon the extension of Third street in front of his lands, but that the eastern abutment of said bridge was situated upon the land of Third street extended westerly about one hundred and fifty feet west of the westerly line of plaintiff’s lands.” The other facts found by the court being substantially the same as upon the former appeal, judgment was…