¶1I concur in the judgment because it does not appear in the findings either that the coterminous owners had agreed upon the fence as the line between lots 4 and 7, or that respondents had claimed it as such line. All that appears is, that respondents, in addition to the west half of lot 7, also held by adverse possession a part of lot 4 as such; and as they had paid no taxes on the part of lot 4 in their adverse possession, they could not invoice the statute of limitations. But I do not think that the provision of section 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure, about the payment of taxes, applies to a small strip along a boundary line, when the adverse holder claims that the general description in his title deed carries him to the line to which he had held adversely by actual possession, and he has paid the taxes on the land thus described in his deed.
97 Cal. 266
McDonald v. Drew
Decided February 8, 1893
California Supreme Court · decided 1893-02-08
<p>Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1893-02-08
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1981
9 state decisions
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 →