Skip to main content
· 7/1/1875

Morris v. De Celis

Citations

  • 51 Cal. 55

Syllabus

<p>Title by Statute of Limitations.—An adverse possession of the defendant in ejectment, if continued for five years, creates a title in him to the land so possessed.</p> <p>Specification in Statement.—If the statement of the plaintiff on motion for a new trial, specifies as a reason why a new trial should be granted, that “ there is no evidence to show that the title ever has been in the defendant,” it is sufficient to enable the Court to review the evidence as to the defendant’s title by adverse possession.</p> <p>Peima Faoie Evidence.—The fact that the mayor of a city has no knowledge of the issuance by the United States of a patent for the pueblo lands of the city, is prima facie evidence that no such patent has been issued.</p> <p>Limitation of Action as to Spanish Geants.— The owners of grants of land by Mexico or Spain, which grants had not been finally confirmed by the United States more than five years before the passage of the act of April 18, 1863, amending the Statute of Limitations, had five years after the passage of said act of 1863 in which to commence actions for the recovery of the same.</p> <p>Final Confibmation of Mexican Geant.—After the passage of the act of Congress of June 14, 1860, giving the United States District Court authority over surveys, a judicial approval of a survey was a final confirmation within the intent of the sixth section of the Statute of Limitations of this State, as amended in 1855.</p> <p>Statute of Limitations as to Mexican Gbant.—The party claiming title under a Mexican grant, if the other relies on five years’ adverse possession, must show that the patent has not issued for the same, or that the official survey has not been approved by the District Court under the act of Congress of June 14, 1860.</p> <p>Suevey of Mexican Geant.—If the final confirmation of a Mexican grant was made by the Board of United States Land Commissioners, and not by the District Court, the District Court had no jurisdiction under the act of C

Judges: Rhodes, Wallace

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.