The morning call., 1892-01-09
CLOUDS ROLLED BY.
Judge Hunt Gives the Castro
Claim Its Qaietus.
Very Valuable City Real Estate Was ~
volved-Vexatious Delays in Prose-
cutting the Case.

Judge Hunt rendered decision yester-
day morning clearing the titles to very val
liable real estate owned by the city and
many individuals in the Western Addition
In June. 1889, Androncus Castro and 9TH
ers instituted an action against the city ana
county and about 1000 other defendants To
adjudge themselves the lawful owners OF
over one hundred blocks Of land in the West
ern Addition, including valuable tract
bounded by Franklin and Vallejo streets,
the Presidto reservation and the bay.
In November, 1889. w. II. Barley, one OF
the defendants to the suit, was served a
summons and asked for a dismissal OF the
case on the ground that the prosecution had
been negligent. This dismissal Judge Hunt
granted yesterday, and with it the other
actions practically fell to the ground so far
as the Superior Court is concerned, for tue
other defendants will doubtless move for
dismissal on the same grounds advanced IN
BaTkey'S case.
COST OF SERVING SUMMONS.
The plaintiffs set up as their defense that
1t would cost them an enormous amount to
serve summons on the multitude Of defend
ants. In the meantime their titles we've
clOuded. They claimed that under the law
the Court had no right to dismiss an action
for delay in serving Of summons unless the
delay existed for at least three years. Judge
Hunt replied:
II do not so understand the law. The
present action clouds the title of some 1000
people TO a valuable tract Of land, the use
aud occupation of which, according to
plaintiffs theory, is worth $4,000 per
month. When an action of this kind, af-
fecting the property rights OF a vast number
of people is commenced. the plaintiffs should
be required to prosecute 1t and bring
the defendants into court with all reason
a0le dispatch, so that it may be speedily de-
termined whether the claim asserted is just
or unjust.
Such a rule is one whereof no sutton can
complain, as it advances the remedy if the
claim be good and removes cloud upon the
title If il be bad. | do not think that the
Legislature had the power, nor did it de-
sign IN enacting the section in question, to
control the courts in the exercise Of their
discretion in determining motions Of this
character
DEPENDENT UPON FACTS.
Long prior to the legislation in question
courts repeatedly exercised this power
The question of negligence in such cases is
one which is dependent upon the facts and
like similar questions. The court has power
to determine il. When the delay in the ser
vice of summons extends over q period Of
three years it may be that the action must
be dismissed; when 1t is for a lesser period
the courts may, in the exercise OF just dis
erection, either dismiss or continue the ac-
ton.
II do not consider this statute was in
tended as a legislative sanction of laws
delays. nor do l think courts should permit
actions like this to languish for so long a
period Of time that the parties instituting
them may accomplish by delay a result
which they might not achieve upon trial
The principal circumstances urged in eX-
tenuatiOn of this de!ay-namely, the great
cost Of serving summons upon the numeT-
Gus defendants, is unworthy of c0nSldera-
ton. The plaintiffs impecuni0sity cannot
palliate their negligence
For these reasons | am of opinion that
there was unreasonable delay upon the part
Of the plaintiffs in the service Of the sum
mons IN question upon the defendant, Bark
ley; that no excuse whatever has been
offered for such delay. and that the action
should therefore be dismissed as to the de-
feudant, Barley, and it is so ordered"