The herald., 1893-08-29

made as averred by plaintiff, and he
averred that $1,000 had not been realized
from sales when the action was brought,
and hence that nothing was due.
Judgment was given for the plaintiff,
and from it he appealed. The supreme
court discusses the points raised at some
length, and decides that the judgment
was correct, that the evidence sustained
the plaintiffs construction of the con-
tract, and that the court below did not
err in the points contended for by APP
pellant.
THE 20.MILE LIMIT AGAIN.
The supreme court sustains the judg-
ment of the superior court OF Los An
geles county in the case of g. G.
Charlton, appellant, vs. Southern Pacific
company, respondent.
The plaintiff commenced the action
September 80, 1890, to quiet his title as
against the company to tract Of land in
this county in fractional section Z, town.
ship north, range 16 west.
The complaint alleged that he was
and had been for long time in posses
sion and was the owner.
The answer denied the plaintiffs pos
session or ownership, subject only to the
paramount title Of theE United States, ad.
mitted the company claimed an interest
in the property and denied that it was
without right.
The company alleged that the land in
controversy was granted to it by act OF
congress of March 3, 1871; that map
OF definite location of the grant was filed
April 8, 1891, and that it completed it's
road opposite to the land in 1876; that
it is entitled to the patent; that it has
never been properly surveyed by the
government, but when that is done it
has no doubt patent will issue to the
company.
Judgment went for the company. from
which the appeal was taken. In sup
port of the appeal it was contended that
the findings did not cover all the issues
raised in the pleadings, and that the
first finding. If construed to mean that
the plaintiff was not in possession of the
premises in controversy at the time the
action was commenced is not sustained
by the evidence. ~
The supreme court says that the &C.
tion seems to be this, that the plaintiff
| took possession of the land in contro-
versy and, when he had occupied it for
| less than a year, commenced this action
to have his title to it quieted. tt does not
appear that he had the qualifications
necessary to enable him to take up any
land under the pre-emption or home
stead laws. He was in no way in privity
with the title, but relied upon his naked
possession.
The court discusses the right of the
railroad to the odd numbered sections,
and states that the section in contro-
versy is within the 20 mile limit. 1t
then concludes: "The case was EVIL
IDENTITY tried upon the theory, upon both
sides, that the land in controversy was
then or ould be when finally surveyed
therefore go regard it. This being so, 1t
case whether the fee still remained In
the government or had passed to the
defendant. Unquestionably the de-
fendant had an estate or interest in the
land which was superior and paramount
to any right the plaintiff had by reason
of his mere possession. The first find
ing was in effect that the plaintiff was
not the owner or in possession of the
land subject only to the paramount
title of the United States; and this
finding was in our opinion fully justified.
The Judgment and order are affirmed.
OTHER CASES DECIDED.
In the case of the Bituminous Lime
Rock Pavement and Improvement com.
pany, appellant, We. j. e. Fuller ct al,
respondents, theanpreme court reversed
the judgment of the superior court with
instructions to it to overrule the demur-
rer to the complaint with leave to de-
fendant to answer. pa ? -
The action was ito enforce a lien
against certain property of the defend.
ants for street assessment work. A de-
murrer was interposed and Sustained by
the court, and plaintiff declining to
amend. final judgment was given in
favor of the defendant. Charles Hen
derson.
In the case of Hugh R. Hildreth, re.
spondent. VS.. Henry A. Williams, appel
liant, the court afirms the Judgment OF
the lower court. 1t was an appeal from
a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $3.50
as an attorneys fee in an action in
equity to enforce pledge upon certain
stocks given to secure the payment OF a
promissory note made by defendant to
plaintiff for $500,