Los Angeles daily herald., 1873-12-21
Supreme Court Decisions.

upon four years out OF nVe.
"A - Supreme Court decisions.
iocToBEIFI, TERN, 1873. ysa.
PIco %. COLEMAN (S,955].
DEED Y RULE OF CONSTRUCTION In
constituting deed, all its parts must
be consulted, and it must be read in
r Tthe light Of the surrounding circum-
'stances. et'4e S"N~~
Appeal from the District Court of
the Seventeenth Judicial District, Los
| Angeles County. ! The action was
Brought to quiet title to tract OF land
known as the RanchitO or Rancho
Paso del Bartolo ViejO, containing
5000 acres, and for the construction,
or, if necessary, the reformation of o
deed. the deed, which is in Spanish,
and is dated May 5th, 1856, recites a
consideration Of one dollar, and, as
translated. contains the following Ian
| knage ~ "I, PiOa Pico, ~ "w@ con-
tract, deed, sell and convey to Maria
Martinez, her heirs and successors for
ever, q piece or tract Of land that con-
tains, from east to west, 865 varas, and
from north TO south 294, situate to tle
north az my priuci ipal residence ana
hsbitstioh; hi M which land that I cede,y /
Sell and convey with (cuyo terreno que
Ecedo, vepd0 yevengeno, con eel sdere-
cho) the right, title and interest, claim
or demand that have
in and to all that tract of land "
known by the name of Paso de BartolO
and Rafael, etc. The Court found that
at the, date Of the deed, the grantee
was living on the land described by
,vsras; that the deed was made in pur-
suance Of q verbal agreement for the
conveyance only Of that tract; that
after receiving the deed and prior to
1895, she enclosed the tract Of 085 varas
by 294 varas, claiming it to be the
only land conveyed to her; that in
1883 Pico, with the knowledge Of Mar
tfhezy had the tract surveyed, iclainl-
ing tito be, the only land, conveyed by
the deed; that Martinez never at any
time set up, any claim to any lands
outside the tract; that the plaintiff has
constantly resided on the rancho, cul-
tivating it and herding stock upon 1t
without interruption; that on the 8th
Of February, 1870, Martinez executed
deed to defendants Coleman and Oil
vera y conveying the entire ranchito,
the premises In controversy, for the
consideration of $2,OO0;" that the ran
,chO in 1855 was worth $50, 900 to $780,
600; that the agent Of Martinez in
formed Olivera that he was selling the
land desc ribed In the deed from Pico,
the tract Of S65 ,yaras by 264 varas; and
chat the plaintiff has had the actual,
continued and exclusive possession Of
! the rapchito, exceptssth tract de-
scribed, &dOwnto the acomniencemen
of this action; but his title was not
founded upon any written instrument
or Judgment or decree. AS conclusions
Of lRw, the court found that the deed
to Martinez convey to her the whole
runcho; that an action to correct any
mistake in the deed is barred by the
statute of limitations, and that under
the statute (Hittel, 4,355), "by the
statute Of limitations, the plaintiff is
the owner Of all the lands on said ran
chito, which for o period Of five years
next prior to the bringing Of this ac-
ton, were protected by substantial
inclosure, or were usually cultivated
improved bv him or his tenants, and
as to SO much Of his rancho, plaintiff
Is entitled to maintain this action, to-
wit: amounting to some 1900 acres"
Judgment was rendered that the plain
tiff's title be quieted accordingly. The
plaintiff moved for q new trial, which
was denied. He also moved for judg-
ment in accordance with the prayer Of
the complaint, and the motion having
been refused he appealed from the
judgment and from the orders deny
ing his imOtions. dI ilillb Ak3 lbM,
VGlassell, Chapman 4 Smith, FOR ap-
| pellant; argued that the deed from
Pico to Martinez was intended to con-
vey only the tract described by varas,
and that it was 80 understood by the
parties. and acted. upon BY them for a
Volney +. Howard & Sons, John
Currey, Kewen d Howard and Henry
K. Highton, for respondents, contend-
ed that the deed conveyed the whole
rancho.
By the Court mo. 1855, Pico vs..
Coleman-Filed December 9th, 1871,
Inse0nstruing the deed from the plain,
tn V Maria Iaxtinez; all its parts,
hknat be <onsulted, md itmust bGreAdl
in the light Of the surrounding cir
cumstances. Tested by these rules,
we do not entertain the slightest
doubt that It, was intended by both
pSrties tolthe Instrument 10 convey
| 9ply the tsAct9 'oontA nlnG ffom eaat to
west eight hundred and sixty-five[865l
varas, aud from north to south two
hundred and ninety-four [294] varas,"
and that it was not intended to include
and does not include. the remain-
der Of the rancho. The parties have
themselves so construed the deed by
their subsequent acts, and there is no
reasonable ground to doubt that this Is
the correct, interpretation ofit. eIiao.
10 Judgment reversed and cause re-
,manded with en- order to the court be-
low to enter Judgment for the plaintiff
OH the findings.
Remittitur.
/ SANCHEZ VS., ,I.oWREYRo l3,299l =,
Epaed rs sevidence 4 Of possessiO "A
deed transfers to the grantee the
| grantor's right to the title or pos
session, but 1t is not evidence Of &C.
tual. possession or actual change OF
/ n0ssessfuN. sk<bz az @b'2s
Trial Of the right of possession. 1.-The
r right of possession to land cannot be
put in issue or tried in an action of
forcible entry and detainer.
Appeal from the County Court OF
Santa Clara county. The plaintiff OBJ
tained Judgment and the defendant,
having moved for q new trial, which
Was genisds appealed from the judg-
ment and nom the order deuying the
new trial. The other facts are stated