The morning call., 1892-03-01
POTRERO LANDS.
Judgment Given Against the
Pacific Association.
Inc Cloads Removed From Many Hurdi ed
Titlss-Ihe Harrington Claim Given
It's Quietus by Judge Hunt.

Yesterday was not marked on the calen-
dars with red ink, but it was nevertheless
holiday In that large and important section
OF the city called the Potrero. Ii was a
holiday because Judge Hunt had rendered
decision removing an old cloud from the
Titles OF thousand property-owners. The
case oil the Pacific Land Association and
others against the city and county and
others was decided in favor of the de-
PENDANTS.
Judge Hunts decision contains the story
OF TIE case, with which the public is quite
familiar. He set aside an order made in
November. by which the default of about
lou deienoanis was entered. and says:
DROPPED OUT OF THE CASE.
iron the trial of This action The plaintiffs en-
uelno,eu 10 prove that IN the years 1852 aud
1898 Joseph w. harrington had possession, on
Tue po,'sfo OF 100 acres OF land his partner.
Luuiuhi, OF "a acres; Story & Walt OF 20 acres
ana one bowman OF 100 acres
Under the ruling OF the court upon the trial,
excluding ON evidence tho socalled covenant,
no connection what yer was made by plaintiffs
Win The alleged Title or claim OF Story & Wait
or bowman, and those claims dropped out OF tue
Whatever interest, II any. Farrtnpton and
Ludiuin had IN that properly claimed by them
passed oui OF them by conveyance to Bensley of
one,hdii Oh their interest, and through mortgage
10 Gould OF the remaining one-half, While the
plaintiffs nave Introduced evidence relating to
VIC POSSESSION Dy harrington ana Ludlum OF
certain lands upon the Potrerc, their document
airy claim OF little rests upon d Conveyance. exc
cuded by Bellows and Farweil TO j. Z. Pratt.
Briefly stated, plaintiffs attempted 70 deraIgn
title as follows: In September. 1858. Bellows
and Farwell decided to Joseph Pratt: Pratt and
que m Lawdesce thereafter conveyed TO Joseph G.
Bauer, ana Bauer decided TO the South Beach
Lana Association, through whom the plaintiffs
Herein claim.
The conveyance of Bellows and FarwelI to
Pratt, which may be SAID to be the source OF
pialhtiHs documentary claim of title, recited
lhai the land sold was the land in the possession
OF James III. Taylor & Co. aud IL was this land
anu no DINER which the deed sought to convey;
IL was this land, aud none other, upon which the
subsequent deeds under which plaintiffs claim
could operate.
PLAINTIFFS NOT CONNECTED.
There was no evidence whatever Of any pos
session or title In Bellows Whatever interest
harrington aud Ludlum did possess or subse-
quenty acquired iu the claim went 10 feed The
conyeyances made by them TO Mason and Beus-
icy and the deeds made upon the foreclosure
SAFE Ca the mortgage executed To Gould. HE
plaintiffs have not connected themselves with
Mason ana Bsnsey or with Gould.
AS 10 the alleged possession OF Taylor, re-
ferred 10 IN the deed from Bellows To Pratt. it
does not appear that any conveyance was ever
maze thereof To Bellows. There some evil
dence that Taylor was acting foreman for
Bellows 4 Webster, and, as such, was la charge
OF some bfickyard upon the Potrero. Mr.. Far
Ilngton himself thus testified. When he is
asked whether Taylor occupied any other prop
ety than The backyard lie stated that he did not
know OF any other. There is no evidence TO
extent OF land that II occupied. In fact Taylor's
connection With the brickyard seems TO have
been mat al a mere empiOye working for Bel
lows q webster, or for harrington aud Ludum.
There was no possession under claim OF title or
right shown IN him whatever of any particular
piece OF land upon The Potrerc.
There being therefore no evidence as to the
location or situation Of the land referred 10 as
being la The possession Of Taylor at the time OF
the execution OF the deed in question: IL is mani
Test that the plaintiffs have failed 10 show utle
10 The land Ia controversy.
ADVERSE POSSESSION.
Furthermore, there il IA this case no sufficient
evidence CT The alleged possession OF Harrington
x Ludlum OF The tract called The FaEriugtOn &
Ludum Tract. There is the testimony OF MIR.
harrington himself that In 1858 or 1854 his
possession was frequently disturbed. lie him.
sell states that parties were constantly entering
upon the land and destroying his fences. With
IN the very boundaries OF his claim the evidence
inulsputably aud abundantly establishes that
Crowell, Felt, Dugan and others were maintain
Ing and have ever since maintained undisputed
possession Of d large portion of The premises in
controversy
All the defendants herein. with the exception
OF the defendant Mccartney, have Furthermore
established an adverse possession OF The prem
lses In question tor period of time extending
from Ten 10 thirty years prior TO the commence
ment OF The action. These defendants are clearly
entitled 10 recover herein.
AS 10 defendant Mccartney, no proof was of.
Tered on his part showing lie was the owner of the
premises claimed by him. But The plaintiffs,
IN MY opinion also failed 10 establish their claim
OF title TO the land In question. results that as
10 such defendant Mccartney, the action Is SIM
ply dismissed. AS To all of The other defend ant s
appearing and answering IN the action. 1t is or
dered aud adjudged that The plaintiffs have no
right, title or interest in the land described IN
The answers of tie defendants, and that the said
defendants are, each and ali OF Them. tile owners
IN fee OF such lands, and entitled 10 have their
TILE thereto queted as against the claims OF the
plaintiffs herein.