Spaulding v. Bradley
Citations
- 79 Cal. 449
- 22 P. 47
- 1889 Cal. LEXIS 751
Syllabus
<p>Findings—Sufficiency of Evidence — Review on Appeal.—If the evidence sustains the finding of the court below upon a material issue which is decisive of the case, and this finding and others not objected to support the judgment, it is immaterial whether other findings objected to are sustained by the evidence or not.</p> <p>Alcalde Grant—Sufficiency of Description — Evidence.—When the description of two lots conveyed by alcalde grants represents them as one-hundred-vara lots numbered 15 and 25 as marked on page 4 of District Record “B,” which record shows the location of the premises described in the grants, there is no patent ambiguity in the description; and if there is no evidence tending to discover a latent ambiguity, an objection to the grants as uncertain and ambiguous in the description of the premises conveyed is properly overruled.</p> <p>Id. — Effect of Alcalde Grant — Street — Eminent Domain. — A grant of lots made by the alcalde of San Francisco in 1848 passed an absolute title thereto; nor could any portion thereof be appropriated to the use of the public as a street, except upon due compensation paid or secured in pursuance of proceedings prosecuted for that purpose.</p> <p>Dedication of Street. — To constitute a dedication of land for a street, there must be a manifestation of the owner’s intent to dedicate it to a public use, and an acceptance and use by the public for the purpose intended and manifested by the owner.</p> <p>Id. — Evidence of Dedication. — A description in an unverified complaint in ejectment of a lot the whole of which is recovered in the action, which represents the lot as commencing near the northeast corner of Union and Polk streets, without anything in the record of the action to ■ identify the starting-point, does not indicate that Polk Street extended across the lot, or was used by the public across it, or prove any intent of the plaintiff in ejectment to dedicate any part of the lot to be used as a public street.</p> <p>St
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting defendant’s tenth-grade education when determining if defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel
- generalized waiver form and court’s explanation that defendant had a right to counsel at trial were insufficient to show that court informed defendant about his right to counsel during his plea hearing
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Vancliee
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.