Brumagim v. Bradshaw
39 Cal. 24 (1870)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an enclosure of a large tract of land is composed of both artificial and natural barriers, the question of whether the acts of dominion are sufficient to constitute actual possession (possessio pedis) is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court.
Facts:
- The land in dispute is a 1,000-acre peninsula known as the 'Potrero,' naturally bounded on three sides by Mission creek, Precita creek, and the San Francisco Bay.
- An ancient, dilapidated stone wall and ditch ran across the neck of the peninsula, connecting the waterways.
- In 1850, George Treat repaired the wall and ditch, making it sufficient to turn cattle.
- Treat also erected a gate, a corral for herding cattle, and a shanty for a gate-keeper.
- After the repairs, Treat began using the entire Potrero to pasture horses for hire.
- In February 1852, George Treat conveyed his interest in the property to Dyson, the plaintiff's intestate.
- Dyson continued to use the land for pasturage in the same manner as Treat.
- Subsequently, the defendants entered the property while Dyson was using it.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, as administrator of Dyson's estate, filed an ejectment action against the defendants in the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff.
- The defendants made a motion for a new trial, arguing the evidence was insufficient and the verdict was against law.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.
- The defendants appealed the denial of their motion to the California Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does repairing a stone wall across the neck of a 1,000-acre peninsula and subsequently using the land for pasturage constitute actual possession (possessio pedis) as a matter of law, sufficient to maintain an action in ejectment?
Opinions:
Majority - Crockett, J.
No. Repairing a wall across a peninsula and using the land for pasturage does not constitute actual possession as a matter of law; rather, it is for the jury to determine if the acts of dominion were sufficient to provide notice to the public of an exclusive claim. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that if they found the plaintiff's predecessor had repaired the wall and used the land for pasturage, then actual possession was established as a matter of law. The court reasoned that what constitutes actual possession depends on the specific circumstances, including the size, character, and locality of the land. While a complete artificial fence can establish possession by itself as a notorious act of dominion, an enclosure relying heavily on natural barriers for a large tract does not automatically do so. The acts of dominion must be such as to give open and notorious notice to the public that the claimant has appropriated the land for their exclusive use. For large tracts with natural barriers, it is the peculiar province of the jury to decide whether the claimant's acts, considering all circumstances, were of such a character as usually accompany the ownership of similarly situated lands and were sufficient to impart this public notice.
Analysis:
This case establishes a flexible, fact-intensive standard for determining actual possession of large land tracts partially enclosed by natural barriers. It moves the determination from a question of law to a question of fact, empowering the jury to weigh the sufficiency of a claimant's actions. The decision prevents claimants from easily acquiring possession of vast territories with minimal effort, like building a single fence across a large peninsula. Future litigation over such lands will require a detailed factual showing that the claimant's acts of dominion were substantial and notorious enough to provide public notice, relative to the size and character of the land in question.
Unlock the full brief for Brumagim v. Bradshaw