Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 Cal. 648

Murphy v. Wallingford

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1856

California Supreme Court · decided 1856-07-01

This was an action of ejectment transferred from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, county of El Dorado. It was brought tare-cover possession of about twelve acres of land in that county, being part of a tract of one hundred and sixty acres taken up by plaintiff in 1850. The plaintiff relies solely upon his prior possession.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Possession is presumptive evidence of title, but it must be an actual bona, fide occupation, a pedis possessio, a subjection to tlie will and control, as contra-distinguished from the mere assertion of title and the exercise of casual acts of ownership. A mere entry, without color of title, accompanied by a survey and marking of boundaries, is not sufficient.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Valcalda v. Silver Peak Mines

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1856-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1915

1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

201856186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Terry delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶1Mr. Chief Justice Murray concurred.

¶2This is an action of ejectment, in which the plaintiff seeks to recover upon prior possession.

¶3The facts, as disclosed by the record, are as follows: In 1850 the plaintiff entered upon a tract of land in El Dorado county, caused it to be surveyed, and the boundaries marked; built a house upon it, in which he resided, and enclosed and cultivated a small portion of the tract. In 1852 the defendant entered upon the land within the boundaries of the survey, but not within the actual enclosure of plaintiff.

¶4Possession is presumptive evidence of title, but it must be an actual bona fide occupation, a pedis possessio, a subjection to the will and con- . trol, as contradistinguished from the mere assertion of title, and the exercise of casual acts of ownership," See Plume v. Seward, 4 Cal., 95. A mere entry without color of title, accompanied by a survey and marking of boundaries, is not sufficient.

¶5The statute of this State has provided a means by which the actual possession of a party may be extended to the limits of his survey, but the plaintiff not having shown a compliance with the provisions of the statute, cannot recover under it. Sweetland v. Froe, July Term, 1856.

¶6The Court erred in refusing a non-suit. Judgment reversed.

/6/cal/648 · .json · Public domain