Skip to main content
· 8/31/1915

Central Pacific Railway Co. v. Droge

Citations

  • 151 P. 663
  • 171 Cal. 32
  • 1915 Cal. LEXIS 584

Syllabus

<p>Action to Recover Real Property—Proof op Title—Deeds—Evidence—Original Record.—Under section 1951 of the Code of Civil Procedure the original record of a deed properly acknowledged may be read in evidence to prove the contents of the deed, with like effect as the deed itself and without further proof.</p> <p>Id.—Instrument Recorded in Wrong Book—Evidence—Construction op Section 4135a, Political Code.—The effect of section 4135a of the Political Code would probably be that the record of an instrument in a wrong book in the recorder’s office, if it is properly indexed, would be competent evidence of the contents of the instrument; but where no proof was offered that a deed, recorded in the miscellaneous records, was properly indexed, a ruling of the trial court admitting it in evidence, over objection, cannot be sustained upon that ground.</p> <p>Ib.—U. S. Grant of Bight of Wat fob Transcontinental Railroad— Determination of Necessity of Land for—Lack of Power of Alienation.—The act of Congress of July 1, 1862, granting to the Central Pacific Railroad Company a strip of land four hundred feet in width through the public lands of the United States as a right of way upon which to construct and operate a railroad from the Pacific Ocean eastward to connect with the Union Pacific Railroad to be built westerly from the Missouri River, was a conclusive determination by the United States that the entire strip granted was-necessary for that purpose, and the grantee had no power to alienate or dispose of any part of it for any other purpose; and a transfer of the railroad from one company to another, as its successor in the administration of the public use and for the purpose of continuing the operation thereof, carried with it a transfer of the entire right of way, and gave to the transferee a right of possession thereto.</p> <p>Id.—Adverse Possession—Proof of Ownership—Sufficiency of Evidence.—In an action by the successor in interest of the Central Pacific Railroad Compan

Judges: Shaw

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.