Home for the Care of the Inebriate v. City of San Francisco

Citations

• 119 Cal. 534
• 51 P. 950
• 1898 Cal. LEXIS 666

Syllabus

<p>Home fob Inebriates—Dedication off Lot to Public Use—Private Corporation—Title of City and County.—The dedication of a lot in the city and county of San Francisco for a “Home for Inebriates,” by virtue of proceedings had under Order 800, reserved the lot from private occupation, and dedicated it to a public use, and a private corpora-, tion known as the “Home for the Care of the Inebriate,” without any of the elements of a public agency, can have no right to the lot,' or to its possession under such proceedings, but the title remained in-' the city and county for the public use designated. •</p> <p>Id.—Construction of Act of 1870—Action to Quiet Title of Private Corporation— Judgment fob City and County—Presumptions upon Appeal. In an action to quiet the -title of such private dorporation against the city and county of San Francisco to such lot, where plaintiff claimed title under the act of April 1, 1870, purporting to vest the title of the city and county in such corporation to a lot described therein merely as “set apart by the board of supervisors of San Francisco, or a committee of said board, to and for a corporation known as the ‘Home for the Care of the Inebriate,’” upon appeal from a judgment quieting the title of the city and county, where there is no evidence or finding in the record to show that any lot was ever set apart to such corporation, or that the lot dedicated by the city to public use was ever intended for such corporation, It must be presumed that the “Home for Inebriates” described in Order 800 was not a corporation, and was not the same organization as the private corporation, “Home for the Care of the Inebriate,” and that, inasmuch as the board of supervisors could set apart the land only for public uses, it did not set apart the lot in question for the private use of the plaintiff, and it must be presumed further that there was no evidence from which any finding could be made that plaintiff was the beneficiary intended by the board of su