Los Angeles herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1890-1893, 1891-10-08
+. J. Baldwin Loses His Suit
Against Temple.
Some Interesting Law Points
in the Decision.
Proceedings Yesterday in the Vari-
Gus Tribunals.
PearIey Sentenced = Harry Wyatt Sues
the Sheriff and Bisbee for Dam
ages-COUrt Notes.-The
Cases.

In the case of Baldwin vs.. Temple,
Judge Clark yesterday ordered that
findings be drawn for defendant, as per
the following opinion
'This is an action OF ejectment for q
small tract of land lying within the ex-
terror boundaries of the Rancho La
MERGED. Defendant answers pleading
the statute of limitations, and also files
a crosscomplaint to quiet title against
plaintiffs. Plaintiff replies upon his
paper title and defendant upon titles &C.
quired by adverse possession.
"The evidence discloses that in 1874
F. p. f. Temple, the father of the de-
PENDANT, was part owner OF said Rancho
La MERGED and OF the Rancho Potrero
de Felipe Lugo or Dolores, and in Janu-
airy of that year had tract of land con-
tanning about seventv-ive acres, lying
partly in each Of said ranches, and en-
bracing the land in controversy, sur
veyed and made parol gift of the same
to his son, the defendant. The defend
ant at once-in January, 1874-com-
menced to improve and cultivate said
land and set out walnut orchard there
on. The land was at the time substan-
TALLY enclosed, save the line running
from the northeast corner OF the tract,
on the Mission road, to the
river-defendant having built the
fence on that line in 1877. In Sep
TENDER 1874, defendant went east and
remained until September, 1876, when
he returned. After his return he built
a barn upon the place, and early in the
following year, 1877, he built house
and took up his residence thereon, and
has continued to reside thereon ever
since. From January, 1874, to the COM
mencement of the suit, defendant has
usually cultivated and improved said
land, save during the said two years
that he was absent in the east, and dur
ing those two years the land was culti-
waited by tenant OF defendant, and de-
fendant received a portion of the crops.
In 1881, plaintiff, who has established a
record title to the Rancho La MERGED,
discovered that portion OF said seventy
five acre tract, viz, the land IN con-
,troversy here, was within the exterior
boundaries OF said named rancho, and
informed defendant OF that fact, and re-
quested that he take lease from plain
tiff OF the same. Defendant, who was
at the time in possession, yet wishing to
avoid trouble, took q lease for one year
from January L, 1881, and agreed to pay
an annual rent of one dollar. Said rent
was never paid nor was 1t demanded.
At the expiration of said lease defend
ant refused to renew the same or to ex-
or ole inn n
the owner of the premises. Defendant
produced no tax receipts, nor did he
produce the assessment roll, but testi-
fed orally that he had paid all taxes
assessed upon said property since 1876.
There was no evidence OF any assess
ment of taxes on said property for the
wear 1878. The assessment roll for that
wear shows that an undivided one-halt
interest in 1924 acres OF said ranch was
assessed to George Z. Long as assignee
of F. f. Temple, and '1152 acres OF
land, being an undivided one-fourth
interest Of said ranch, was assessed to
John M. Sanchez. The whole ranch
contains 2363.75 acres.
Upon these facts am OF opinion that
defendant is entitled to a decree a:
prayed for. Assuming, without decid
x,
that there was no assessment OF sale
property for the year 1878, l am inclined
to agree with what is said in plaintiff
brief relative to the payment OF taxes
Where the payment of taxes is an essen
tial element OF adverse possession, it il
incumbent upon the claimant to show
by the production of the assessment rol
what taxes were assessed on the prop
erty in controversy, or that no assess
ment thereof was made. Reynolds VS.
Willard, so Cal, sos.
"That claimants sweeping assertion
that he has paid all taxes that have
been assessed, without the production
Of the assessment roll, is not sufficient
But am OF opinion that the question o
PAYMENT OF taxes is of no great momen
in this case. The amendment to section
325, G. @. P, requiring party claiming
title by adverse possession to prove tn
payment OF taxes, was passed April l
1878, and went into effect sixty day
thereafter. 1t is not retroactive ant
does rot require proof of the payment o
any taxes except such as were levieI
and assessed after it's passage. Contra
Pacific railroad VS.. Shackelford, 63 Cal.
261.
''Taxes are assessed on the first Mon
day of March in each year, and the lev,
when made relates back and takes effec
as if made at that time. Defendant
adverse possession commenced in Janu
ary, 1874, and it follows that after saiC
amendment to said sec. 325, G. G. 2.
went into effect, and prior to the time
when defendants possession had ripene'
into title in January, 1879. no take
had been levied and assessed. Defend
ants adverse possession gave title |
was not necessary that they should b
the five years Immediately precedin
the commencement of the action: Can
non VS.. Stockman, Sc CAL, 535. AM
payment of taxes by plaintiff out o
possession, if taxes on the premise
were paid by him, gave him no right a
against the defendant. Davis vs.. :Burgh
s. Cal, $40. Defendant being In pos
session at the time OF the execution
the lease in 1881, he is not estoppe!
thereby from denying plaintiffs title Title
Tewksbury vs.. Magroff, 80 Cal, 23I
Franklin VS.. Merida, 80 Cal, 55S. -,
"The point made in the plaintiff
hr;of +bot +ha noaaaasiOn of the dc