Feliz v. Feliz

Citations

• 105 Cal. 1
• 38 P. 521
• 1894 Cal. LEXIS 1099

Syllabus

<p>Adverse Possession—Tenancy in Common—Notice—Prescription.— When a tenant in common is in possession of the whole premises, and exercises acts of ownership of an unequivocal character, overt and notorious, and of such a nature as by their own import to impart information and notice to the other cotenants that an adverse possession and disseisin are intended, his possession is adverse, and if continued for five years, with payment of all taxes levied and assessed on the land after April 1, 1878, will vest a title by prescription.</p> <p>Id.—Instructions — Construction op Charge to Jury.—Instructions upon the subject of adverse possession by a tenant in common are to be taken together and considered as a whole; and if, when so considered, the law as to adverse holding between such tenants is correctly stated, the fact that one of the instructions taken by itself is not complete upon that subject will not vitiate the charge to the jury, but the jury will be deemed to have properly applied the law as stated by the charge taken as a whole.</p> <p>Id.—Residence of Cotenant in Family of Adverse Possessor.—The fact that a nephew of the adverse possessor, who is also a cotenant, continues to reside thereon as a member of the family of the cotenant, who is in adverse possession, does not prevent the possession of the latter from being adverse, but the undisputed hostile acts of adverse possession by him would be more readily brought to the notice of the co-tenant residing in his family, and afford him an opportunity of asserting his claim in opposition thereto.</p> <p>Id.—Directing Jury as to Form of Verdict—Limitation of Recovery not Asked for.—The court has the right to instruct the jury as to the form of their verdict, and when no question is made in the answer or at the trial as to the right of plaintiffs to recover the whole premises, if entitled to recover at all, the defendants cannot, after an adverse verdict, insist that there should have been a limitation in the i