The only question on this appeal is, whether the claim of the plaintiff is barred by the statute of limitations. Confеssedly it is so barred, unless the title of plaintiff was charged with a public trust, and for that reason not subject to extinguishment by adverse possession, under the statute of limitations.
The action is ejectment, for the recovery of one of the beach and water lots of San Francisco. It was found that the defendant Straut, and his lessor, Boyd, had been in the continuous, open, nоtorious, adverse possession of the lot for twеlve and a half years next before the commencement of this action, and judgment went for defendants, from which, and an order denying a motion for new trial, plaintiff appeals.
The title of plaintiff is that, and that only, which was derived under the beach-and-water-lot act. (Stats. 1851, p. 309.) • Appellant claims that by the terms оf the act the premises were “ impressed with a public trust.” Whether it was so impressed or not was determinеd by this court in Holladay v. Frisbie,
A rеference to the act under which appellant claims fully justifies this decision. The grant is for a term, but during the term no beneficial interest in the land whatever is reserved to the state. The city is not required to sell; the only provision is, that, if she does sell, she shall pay twenty-five per cent of the proceeds of the salе to the state. The only right of the state is in the proceeds when realized, but with no obligation on the part of the city ever to realize any proceeds.
The right of the city, therefore, for the term is as аbsolute a title, and as free from trust, as that of any private proprietor.
The title thus granted may be extinguished by adAerse possession, under the statute of limitаtions. (San Francisco v. Calderwood,
Judgment and order affirmed.
Paterson, J., and Beatty, C. J., concurred.