Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-26
officers to private persons in full owner.

S.SoAS w pAANato poIeOnb In full owner
ship.
That the authority to grant such lands
was vestsd In the Ayuntamiento and in
the Alcaldes, or other officers who at the
Time represented 1t, ,or who had succeeded
to its powers and obligations.
| That the official acts of such officers in
tne course OF their ordinary and accu, :
toned duties and within the general
scope OF their powers, as are defined and
e1plained, VIII oepresumed to have been
done by lawful authority.
1t will be seen, therefore, that the
former pueblo possessed the power OF
disposing of lots to it's inhabitants, and
this power of disposing of lots necss-
sarily included the power of laying out
or adopting plan to which such lots
shonld conform and by which they should
be disposed Of But it is claimed by
counsel for the plaintiff that the mere
adoption of a map delineating streets
lots and blocks does not, of
itself. dedicate the streets or
spaces bet~ee the blocks to public use.
In April, 1851, the Legislature passed an
act to provide for the disposition of Ger.
tain property on the water front Of the
city OF San Francisco, and the city
adopted map known as the Eddy or
red line map, on which red line, as ex-
hibited and drawn thereon, delineated
the boundaries of the beach and water
property of the city of San Francisco:
that the names of streets were marked
out upon that map, showing East street
from Market to Folsom; that the city
thereafter disposed of the water lots
within said red line according to this
10 Zoe
became the owner, by purchase from the
city, of water lots west of and abutting
on East street, and in 1854 they piled,
capped and planked the west half
of what was delineated ON the map
as East street, and in front of the lots
owned by them and from that time used
the same continuously as lumber yard
exclusively, claiming the same in their
own right as against all the world.
Their possession was never interfered
with up to the time of the bringing of an
action in the name of the People vs. said
Pope ct al. in 1872. The space delineated
as East street never had been used or
occupied as street or thoroughfare
as it was delineated on the map it was
covered by the waters of the bay suff.
ciently deep to float a vessel. In the
case of the People vs. Pope, 35 Cal. 237,
1t was claimed by the counsel for the
people in that case, in their brief, that
the act of delineating the street upon the |
msp and selling lots abutting thereon
was dedication of that street by the |
grantor of the lots, and this view is sup
ported by the court In it's decision. The |
court says: "That East street was duly |
dedicated as public street can admit OF
no serious doubt from the facts estab. |
lished on the trial" 1t is claimed, how
ever, on the part of the plaintiffs coun-
sci, that at the time of the adoption Of |
the Ord map, the grantor of plaintiff was |
in the occupation of that portion of Sec
ond street, including the premises in con-
troversv, but it must be plain from what |
has already been shown that mere occu- |
patton did not vest an inhabitant with |
title to municipal lands; but that the |
legal title could only be obtained accord |
ing to law or regulations govern
ing the municipal bodies which are
mere subdivisions of the State, and |
that there is no such thing as title by |
adverse holding against the pueblo any |
more than there would be by mere occu.
patton of public lands of the United |
States. The grantor of plaintiff seems
to have recognized this principle of law
by applying to the city authorities az the |
successor of the Mexican pueblo for
grant of title. and as already shown, this |
grant of title bounded the lot granted on |
the south by the line of Second street,
the same as in the grant of the beach |
and water lots Of San Francisco bounded |
the lots granted by the line of East |!
street, and that the plaintiff and his |
grGntore continue TO remain in the occu-
patton of the portion of Second street |
continuing the premises in controversy
does not vest the title in them as against
the public in the use of said street. In
the case referred to, People vs. Pope, the
court says: Apparently, the only de-
tense seriously relied upon was the stat
ute of limitations, the defendants claim
ing that they had been in the actual ad-
verse occupation of the premises for
moro than ten years next before the com
msncement Of the action. Assuming
that the evidence proved such actual ad.
verse occupation for ten years or more, it
must be considered as settled doctrine
of this court since the decision in Hoad-
ley vs. San Francisco, so CAL, 265, that
no one can acquire by adverse occupa-
ton as against the public, the right to OBJ
struct street dedicated to the public use
and thus prevent the use OF it 40 pub
lie highway"
The action of Hosdley vs.. the city
| referred to was in reference to public
square in San Francisco. In that case
the proof showed that plaintiff was in the
actual possession of the premises in con-
troversy before the adoption of the Van
Ness ordinance and map in 1856, ON which
map the square was delineated. The
ordinance of the city referred to, includ-
ing the map, was approved by the Legis
lature in 1858, and the court held that
the square was dedicated to the public
use, saying: "In this respect it stands
like the streets of city or the highways
in the county" See also CAL, 361.
In Visalia vs. Jacobs, IS Cal, 436, the
court says: "After a street has been
legally laid out and dedicated. the munic.
ipal government retains or acquires a
right OF entry as agent of the public,
clothed with the trusts and duty of pro
tecting and regulating the public use.
The possession is held by the corporation
for the benefit of the public, and this
right cannot be conveyed TO any private
person. The lands so held are not effec.
tually withdrawn from commerce while
the street continues as are those spoken
of in Hoadley VS.. San Francisco, as the
municipality cannot convey the title or
relieve itself of the trust; private persons
- III