The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-02-06

superior court IN favor Ol l. y. SiohlC
in the action brought by this city to
GUST him from what was claimed TO
be a portion of public street in Bran
mans addition. Yesterday complete
copy of the decision was received,
showing the grounds on which the Su-
preme Court holds against the city. 1t
reads:
The City of Sacramento. plaintiff and
appellant, against T. j. Clunie. de-
PENDANT and respondent.
This Is an action of ejectment brought
by the City of Sacramento to recover
the possession of certain lands claimed
to be public streets. The citys right to
recover is based upon an alleged dedi-
cation of these lands by the owners to
the public as streets. Defendant and
his grantors have been in the adverse
ana exclusive possession thereof claim
ing title thereto for more than forty
years and have erected improvements
thereon to the value of at least $40
0OU. The trial court found as a fact
that the lands described in the COM
plant We're never dedicated to public
use, and rendered judgment against
the city. The sufficiency of the evidence
to support this finding of fact, is the
main matter at issue here, and under
the peculiar circumstances of the case.
as developed by the foregoing facts, we
will not disturb the finding of mo
dedication made by the trial court,
unless the pressure of the evidence
upon Us forces such result
1t is insisted that an equitable estop-
pei has arisen in the path of plaintiff
TO bar recovery. And Los Angeles
VS.. Cohen, 101 Cal, 1913, is relied upon
to support the contention Wlsile the
conduct of the city in waiting forty
years before bringing this action is not
at all commendable, especially in view
of the fact that during this long in
term large sums of money were ex-
pended upon the property in permanent
improvements by the defendant and his
srantors, still it is only in exceptional
cases that the doctrine of equitable es-
TOPPED may be invoked against a mu-
nicipaiity, and this case in its facts is
not Les Angeles VS.. Cohen.
Again, we will not concern ourselves
as to the true chain of title While
there appears to have been two distinct
chains of title to these lands, yet both
A4iattlS Dt-Slh Will ,oullSl III 1910, dilu
terminate in this defendant AS we
view the case. this difference of title
becomes immaterial.
There also appears to be a somewhat
intangible claim upon the part of the
plaintiff that all the lands Of the city
lying west of the east line of Fort
street, and extending to the river bank
form part of that street. This posi-
ton is inconsistent with the main po-
sition taken by the city, and certainly
is not we'll founded.
Brannan, Bruce and four others
claiming to own under deeds from SUIT
ter tract of land lying west of Fort
street and east of the Sacramento
River, had the same laid out into
blocks divided by streets. map of
these blocks and streets-the blocks
numbered and the streets named-was
made by Ruth, a surveyor. and filed
in The RECORDERS Office OF Sacramento
County. May ). 1851. The tract of
land depicted upon this map has sub
sequently been known in the history of
Sacramento City as Brannans addition
to the city.
Subsequently some of the blocks out
lined upon this map We're quit claimed
by five of these owners to Gillespie,
also an original owner. The map as
recorded was used for the purposes of
description. and that transfer included
the land here in dispute But soon
thereafter Gillespie conveyed to Hag-
gin the land in dispute with other lands
by metes and bounds. The Assessor of
the City of Sacramento assessed the
lands N the so-called Brannan's addi-
tion according to the description found
upon the Ruth map.
In the year 1854 the city adopted
an official map wherein Brannars ad-
dition, according to the Ruth map, is
found. The adoption of this map as
the official map of the city would un-
doubtedly have more weight as evil
dence of acceptance of the streets in
Brannan's addition. If prior to that time
Gillespie had not sold these lands, in
Guiding the streets, to Haggin, for such
sale is some evidence of intent to re-
woke any offer of dedication previously
made by reason of the filing of the
Ruth map.
We have thus substantially outlined
the evidence upon which plaintiff asks
TO set aside a finding of fact by the
trial court to the effect that these lands
We're never dedicated to the public as
streets. Even conceding this evidence
sufficient TO support finding of ded-
ication, still il is not sufficient to re-
verse a finding of mo dedication" In
this case there never has been any ac-
ceptance on the part of the city, by
user. of the offer Of dedication made
by the parties filing the Ruth map.
Forty years have gone by during this
time During all this time these streets
have been barred from travel. and val
liable and permanent improvements
placed thereon. Under such circum-
stances, in the absence of user. it
would seem that a direct and explicit
acceptance upon the part of the city