TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Tappendorff v. Downing

FREDERICK TAPPENDORFF v. WILLIAM DOWNING

Tappendorff v. Downing, 18 P. 247 (Cal. 1888)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 19, 1888
Docket
No. 11388
Judges
Hayne
Citations
18 P. 24776 Cal. 1691888 Cal. LEXIS 848
Syllabus
Accretion — Deed. — Land formed by accretion on a fractional quarter-section is part thereof, and passes by a deed conveying the fractional quarter by its number. Id. —Statement of Quantity of Land Conveyed. —The statement in a deed of the quantity of the land conveyed is not controlling.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover the possession of certain land lying along the bank of Eel River, in Humboldt County, which had been formed by accretion to the fractional southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 25, in township 3 north, range 2 west, Humboldt meridian. Prior to 1859, the United States government, by its patent, conveyed the said fractional quarter of the quarter-section to one G. G. Dudley. The patent described the land as containing 19.62 acres, which was its exact quantity. On the 5th of August, 1859, Dudley, by the same description, conveyed the land to R. N. Dungan, who, in the year 1872, conveyed it to the plaintiff. On the 31st of August, 1874, the plaintiff conveyed land described as the southeast fractional quarter of the northwest quarter of section 25, township 3 north, range 2 west, Humboldt meridian, containing 19.62 acres, to Caleb Merritt, under whom the defendant claims by deeds containing the same description. The accretion in question commenced to form shortly before the conveyance by Dungan to the plaintiff, and thereafter gradually and imperceptibly increased. The present action was commenced on September 12, 1883, to recover possession of this accretion, the plaintiff claiming that it had not passed by the deeds to the defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant, from which and from an order refusing a new trial, the plaintiff appealed. The further facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hayne

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hayne, C.

In this case, we think that the land formed by accretion was part of the adjoining fractional quarter-section, and that, therefore, the accretion passed by the deeds conveying the fractional- quarter by its number. The statement of the quantity of land. conveyed by a deed is not controlling.

With reference to the statute of limitations, if we assume that the appellant’s specification is sufficient to raise the question (which is doubtful: See Barstow v. Newman, 34 Cal. 91 ; Goodrich v. Van Landigham, 46 Cal. 603 ), we do not think the evidence shows a case of adverse possession by the plaintiff for the requisite period. It may be that there was such possession; but the fact does not appear from the record.

Since the appellant has no title to the fractional quarter-section as it originally stood, or to the accretion, there can be no question as to a boundary line between the two.

We therefore advise that the judgment and order appealed from be affirmed.

*171 Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1919: 11921: 11934: 11937: 11938: 11957: 11971: 119192026peak 1919 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Smith v. Whitney74 P.2d 450 (Mont. 1937)
  2. Mexico Beach Corporation v. St. Joe Paper Company97 So. 2d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1957)
  3. Bode v. Rollwitz199 P. 688 (Mont. 1921)
  4. White v. State of California21 Cal. App. 3d 738 (1971)
  5. City of Oakland v. Buteau179 P. 170 (Cal. 1919)
  6. Braddock v. Wilkins1938 OK 61, 75 P.2d 1139

Most recent

  1. White v. State of California21 Cal. App. 3d 738 (1971)
  2. Mexico Beach Corporation v. St. Joe Paper Company97 So. 2d 708 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1957)
  3. Braddock v. Wilkins1938 OK 61, 75 P.2d 1139
  4. Smith v. Whitney74 P.2d 450 (Mont. 1937)
  5. Haynie v. May252 N.W. 749 (Iowa 1934)
  6. Bode v. Rollwitz199 P. 688 (Mont. 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Odd Fellows' Sav. Bank v. Banton, 46 Cal. 603 (1873) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list