Opinion
Department One
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Humboldt County, and from an order refusing a new trial.
COUNSEL:
J. D. H. Chamberlin, for Appellant.
S. M. Buck, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Hayne, C. Foote, C., and Belcher, C. C., concurred.
OPINION
HAYNE, Judge
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. The Court. -- For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.