Jacoba Feliz de Salazar, Ygnacio del Valle, Jose Ygnacio del Valle, Concepcion del Valle
vs.
Joseph Fountain
Case 741
In the District Court of the 1st Judicial District, State of California, County of Los Angeles
Jacoba Feliz de Salazar, Ygnacio del Valle, Jose Ygnacio del Valle, Concepcion del Valle vs. Joseph Fountain
Complaint filed July 28, 1860
Amended Complaint filed Nov. 14, 1860
Jacoba Feliz de Salazar, wife of Jose Salazar, Ygnacio del Valle, Jose Ygnacio del Valle, Concepcion del Valle, Plaintiffs by this their amended Complaint, complain of Joseph Fountain a resident of said County, and for cause of Complaint show that on the 1st day of October A.D. 1858, they were the owners in fee simple and were in the lawful and peaceful possession of a tract of land situate in said County containing about eleven Mexican leagues of land called and known by the name of "San Francisco" and there and then being so possessed, the said Defendant without the license and permission and against the will of the said Plantiffs, with force and cause, entered upon a certain parcel of said tract of land, to wit: upon the south eastern corner thereof commencing at an oak tree marked P with a cross, situated on the high road that goes from San Fernando to Fort Tejon upon the northern side of the "Cuesta de San Fernando" at a place called the "Puerta," thence running N 6 1/2 E one hundred and sixty chains; thence N 77 W one hundred and sixty chains; thence S 6 1/2 W one hundred and sixty chains; thence S 77 E one hundred and sixty chains to point of commencement; and forcibly and wrongfully ejected Plaintiffs therefrom and entering upon and possessed the same.
And Plaintiff further aver that they are still the owners in fee simple and still are entitled to the possession of the above described lands; but not withstanding which, and the said premises, the said Defendant has since the day last aforesaid, unlawfully and wrongfully withheld and still does withhold from the Plaintiffs, the possession of the said premises and the rents, issues, and profits thereof, though frequently demanded and notified to deliver possession of the same, to their great damage, to wit, in the sum of twenty five hundred dollars.
And Plaintiffs further show that the monthly value of the rents of said lands entered upon by Defendant, is the monthly sum of fifty dollars.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs bring suit and demand to have and recover possesion of the premises entered upon by Defendant as aforesaid, and for twenty five hundred dollars damages, and for costs, and for the monthly value of the rents thereof as aforesaid.
J. L. Brent
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Answer, Filed August 21, 1860
And the said Defendant by his attorney for answer says that he is not guilty of the said supposed trespass and ejectment in the complaint mentioned or either of them or any part thereof. And for further answer in his behalf says that he is and has been continuously in the peaceable possession of the premises in the complaint mentioned for more than five years preceeding the commencement of this action, holding the same adversely to the said plaintiffs and [illegible] under whom they claim title and that the said supposed cause of action did not acrue at any time within five years before the commencement of this action. Wherefore the Defendant prays judgement and that he recover his costs.
And this Defendant for further answer says that he has occupied and possessed the lands described with the complaint for five years last past in good faith claiming them to be his own individual property and believing that he had a just and legal tittle thereto and that during that time he has erected a large and commodious house and other valuable lasting and durable improvements at the cost and of the value of five thousand dollars and that these improvements have enhaunced the value of the said premises to the extent of the said sum of five thousand dollars.
And this defendant prays that the same may be allowed in recoupment of or as an offset to any damages which these plaintiffs may receive against this Defendant in case they shall recover in said action.
Wherefore he prays judgement and for his costs.
Brown & Mitchell
Attorneys for Defendant
Defendant's Withdrawal of Answer, Filed January 3, 1861
We hereby withdraw the answer to the original complaint in this cause filed on the 21st day of August, 1860, and having no answer to make to the amended complaint filed by our consent in this cause on the 14th day of November A.D. 1860, hereby consent and agree that the default of said Defendant may be entered in said cause and that the said Plaintiffs may take judgment against the said Defendant as prayed for in their said amended complaint.
Finding of Court
Filed January 3, 1861
And now on this day comes the said cause on to be heard, the Plaintiffs appearing by J.L. Brent their attorney and the Defendant by Ezra Drown his attorney and the said Defendant having been duly and reserved with a copy of the summons and complaint in this case and having filed his written withdrawal of his answer to the original complaint herein and having failed to answer the amended complaint filed by his consent and his default having been duly entered by the cleak of the court, and the said Defendant having also filed his written consent that the Plaintiffs herein have and recover judgment against him the said Defendant as prayed for in their said amended complaint; the court sitting as a jury proceeds to try said cause and after having heard and considered all the evidence offered finds therefrom the facts to be
1st: That on the 1st day of October A.D. 1858 the said Plaintiffs were the owners in fee simple and in the lawful and peaceable possession of the tract of land known by the name of "San Francisco" situated in said County of Los Angeles, and also of that portion of said tract described in said amended complaint, and the possession of which this action is brought.
2nd: That on the said 1st day of October A.D. 1858, the said Defendant without the license and permission, and against the will of the said Plaintiffs, with force and arms entered upon a portion of said tract of land known by the name of "San Francisco," which said portion is described in the amended complaint on file herein, and forcibly and wrongfully ejected Plaintiffs therefrom, and that the said Defendant then and there entered upon and possessed the same.
3rd: That the said Plaintiffs are still the owners in fee simple and entitled to the possession of said tract of land and that the said Defendant still unlawfully withholds the same from said Plaintiffs.
Whereupon the Court finds as its conclusion of law from said facts upon the premisses that the said Plaintiffs are entitled to have and recover possession of the said premises described in the amended complaint aforesaid of and from the said Defendant, and that they are also entitled to have and recover judgment against him for the sum of thirty six dollars, being their costs, in and about this suit expended and for their accruing costs.
Thus done and signed in open court this 3rd day of January A.D. 1861.
Hon. B. Hayes, Judge