Irvine v. Adler

Citations

• 44 Cal. 559

Syllabus

<p>Word “ Tenant ” in Van Ness Ordinance.—The word “tenant,” as used in the Van Ness Ordinance, is not restricted in its meaning to a mere conventional tenant, as was intimated in Brooks v. Hyde, 37 Cal. 366, but applies to any party who holds the actual possession in subordination to another party under or by virtue of-an agreement either express or implied.</p> <p>Statute op Limitations as to Coterminous Proprietors.—When two coterminous proprietors of land, who are ignorant of the true boundary line between their respective tracts, fix a line with an agreement that each shall possess to that line till the true boundary is ascertained, and the true boundary, when ascertained, leaves one in possession of a portion of the other’s land, this possession is not adverse, so as to set the Statute of Limitations in motion, until there is a distinct repudiation of the agreement under which it was taken.</p> <p>Idem.—In such case the grantees of the one who is in possession of a portion of the other’s land, who buy without notice of the agreement made by their grantor, cannot claim the benefit of the Statute of Limitations until the agreement is repudiated, but occupy the same position their grantor would have done if ho had not sold.</p>