p. 66entire ranchito, the premises in controversy, for the consideration of $2,000;” that the rancho in 1855 was worth from $50,000 to $80,000; that the agent of Martinez informed Olvera that he was selling the land described in the deed from Pico, the tract of 865 varas by 294 varas; and that the plaintiff has had the actual, continued and exclusive possession of the ranchito, except the tract described, down to the commencement of this action. As conclusions of law, the Court found that the deed to Martinez conveyed to her the whole rancho; that an action to correct any mistake in deed is barred by the statute of limitations, and that under the statute (Hittell, 4,355), “by the statute of limitations, the plaintiff is the owner of all the lands on said ranchito, which, for a period of five years next prior to the bringing of this action, were protected by a substantial inclosure, or were usually cultivated or improved by him or his tenants, and as to so much of the rancho, plaintiff is entitled to maintain this action, to-wit: amounting to some 1,800 acres.” Judgment was rendered that the plaintiff’s title be quieted accordingly. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied. He also moved for judgment in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, and the motion having been refused he appealed from the judgment and from the orders denying his motions.
Glassell, Chapman and
Smith, for Appellant, argued that the deed from Pico to Martinez was intended to convey only the tract described by varas, and that it was so understood by the parties, and acted upon by them for a long term of years. They cited
Moore v.
Magrath, 1 Cowper 9, and
Thorpe v.
Thorpe, 1 Lord Raymond 235, and Civil Code, Sec.
1647. They also argued that the construction of the deed by the parties was conclusive, and cited
Sneed v.
Osborne, 25 Cal. 619 ;
Hastings v. Stark, 36 Cal. 122 ;
Ratcliff v.
Grey, 40 N. Y. 510 ;
Rochelle v.
Adam, 7 Cowen 761, and S. C. 6 Wend. 470 .
Volney E. Howard & Sons, John Currey, Kewen & Howard and Henry E. Highton, for Respondents, contended that the
p. 67deed conveyed the whole rancho, and cited Hawley v. Brummagim, 33 Cal. 398 ; Fratt v. Woodward, 32 Cal. 229 , and Walsh v. Hill, 38 Cal. 487 .In construing the deed from the plaintiff to Maria Martinez, all its parts must be consulted, and it must be read in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Tested by these rules, we do not entertain the slightest doubt that it was intended by both parties to the instrument to convey only the tract “ containing from east to west eight hundred and sixty-five (865) varas, and from north to south two hundred and ninety-four (294) varas,” and that it was not intended to include, and does not include, the remainder of the rancho. The parties have themselves so construed the deed by their subsequent acts, and there is no reasonable ground to doubt that this is the correct interpretation of it.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded with an order to the court below to enter judgment for the plaintiff on the findings.
Bemittitur forthwith.