The possession by defendant of the tract in dispute was a mere mistake, and not a claim; and it gave him no rights, and worked no disseisin of plaintiff. (Thompson v. Pioche , 44 Cal. 509-17; Re-affirmed, Thompson v. Felton , 54 Id. 547; Lovell v. Frost , 44 Id. 471; Houx v. Batteen , 68 Mo. 84; Tamm v. Kellogg , 49 Id. 118.)
Even if defendant's possession could be deemed adverse, it could be deemed so only up to April 1, 1878, because of the amendment to Section 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which went into effect on that day, and requires parties claiming title by the Statute of Limitations to show that, for five years, they have paid the taxes assessed against the land claimed.
OPINION The Court:
The title to the property in question was in the plaintiff; possession follows the title unless the contrary appear. The evidence does not show that defendant was in the adverse possession of the property prior to January, 1881.
Judgment and order affirmed.