Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-26
THE CIIY'S TITLE.
The Contest for a Piece OF
Second Street.
JUDGE VAN DYKES OPINION
1t Covers the City's Title to Numer
Gus Pieces of Property Simi-
larly Situated as This.


In the contest of II. W. Mills sgains
the city for possession of q portion o
Second street, the following is Judge Val
Dykes opinion. 1t is given verbatim
In spite of its length, because it covers
the city's title to many other pieces o
land:
This is an action to quiet title. The
property in question is a strip of land II
feet, more or less, in width, extending
westerly from Main street 165 feet along
Second street, and within and along the
northerly line of said Second street, as
the same is now opened and used. The
complaint is in the usual form, and the
answer denies the material allegations OF
the complaint, and also sets up that the
strip in question, as part of Second
street, has been dedicated to the public
as a street. 1t is stipulated on the trial !:
First. That in 1849, prior thereto, and
up to 1858, an adobe building occupied
by Tomas Urquidez extended across the
space where Second street now opens out
into Main street.
Second. That Ord's survey was made
and adopted as the official map of the
city in 1S49, and that copy of that por.
tion pertaining to the case in considera-
ton is in evidence.
Third. That David Anderson, upon his
purchase, from B. A. Townsend, erected
q workshop, afterwards replaced by a
brick building, on the southeast corner OF
said Townsend lot, being the southeast
corner of the property in controversy, and
that said strip has been occupied by
David Anderson and his grantees, under
claim of title from 1853 to July, 1887.
Fourth. That for the past two years the
strip of land in controversy has not been
occupied by any building, nor enclosed f;
that the public have travelled over it with
the knowledge of the plaintiff, and a
sidewalk and curb has been laid next to
the brick building which is cow con-
structed on the north line of the property
in question.
II is shown in evidence that the Town.
send mentioned in the stipulation derived
his claim of title from Urquidez, and that
the plaintiff herein, by conveyances
through Townsend and Anderson, held
whatever right or title they were pos.
sessed of at the time of the conveyance
in 1887, hereinafter referred to. That in
1887 the plaintiff conveyed, with M. L.
Wicks, who was then interested with
him, to one Newell the lot on the north
erly side of, and which faces on the pres.
ent line OF Second street. That the
plaintiff and said Wicks were at the time
interested in the opening and extending
of Second street easterly towards the
river, and in the agreement to sell to
Newell stipulated that this strip was to
be used for street purposes, but in the
deed which followed this stipu.
lation was omitted. That upon
the requirement of Newell's said
grantors the portion of the old
building formerly standing upon this
strip was removed, and the street opened
and graded, and the came, under the di-
rection of the city authorities, has been
paved and a sidewalk placed on the
northerly line thereof, as in the stipula-
ton mentioned.
Testimony was also introduced show
ing the various proceedings of the City
Council and committees of the Council in
reference to the opening of Second
street, and that the city at one time pur-
chased from Dryden, who occupied q
building ON the southerly line of Second
street, at the opening into Main; and
also that proceedings were commenced
or recommended, for the condemnation
Of the property now in controversy, with
others, for the same purpose, but moth
ing came of these proceedings.
The Ord map referred to in the stipu-
lations is a map showing the southern
portion of the city lying west of Main and
south of First, delineated into streets
with the blocks and lots lying between
the same, and shows the full width OF
Second street, between Spring and Main,
the block lying between Spring and
Main, First and Second, being block No.
l, and the lot on the southwest corner of
that block, to.wit: the lot bounded by
Main and Second, being lot No. /. On
this old map, which according to the
stipulation, was adopted by the city au
thorities, there is shading on the north
erly portion of Second street, where i
enters Main, indicating that some build
ing or obstruction stands thereon which
is claimed and supposed to be the build
ing referred to in the stipulation as tn,
quently by Townsend, and where Ander
son, after his purchase, erected work
shop.
LII WAS dlbO III oVlu6uCo tlSt tnO puoUl
title was confirmed, and patent Thereon
issued by the Government of the Unite,
States. It is claimed by the plaintiff
that in opening the obstruction in Sec
ond street, on the strip in question, ii
1887, he did so upon the expectation ant
understanding that the city authorize
would compensate him therefor.
The questions presented in this cas-
are:
First, whether the plaintiffs grantor
ever acquired title to the strip in cor
troversy.
Second, whether Second street, in
Guiding the strip in controversy, wa
dedicated as public street.
1t is claimed on the part of counsel fo
plaintiff that before the Ord map wa
made and adopted by the city, right
had grown up in favor of the grantors c
the plaintiff which vested IN them wit
the title, and also that the adoption
the survey and map by the city author
ties was not dedication. There is n
grant shown from the city which include
the strip in controversy.
Upon petition by Anderson in 1885,
the matter was referred by the Counc
to the appropriate committee, VIII
recommended the granting OF th
petition on condition that Secon
street be made the southern boundar,
and upon session of the Council
August %, 1856, it was ordered that tit
hn o,uar r., tho r,otit;onav vrnon the col