Hoadley v. San Francisco

In Hoadley v. San Francisco (1875) 50 Cal. 265, the plaintiff sued the City of San Francisco to quiet title to two parcels of land, located in an area dedicated for use as city squares. He claimed that he had acquired title (1) by virtue of an ordinance and a confirmatory act, and (2) by adverse possession. ( Hoadley, supra, 50 Cal. at pp. 271-272.) After holding that the plaintiff did not acquire title to the public squares pursuant to the ordinance or the confirmatory act ( Hoadley, supra, 50 Cal. at p. 273), the court in Hoadley considered whether the city was barred by the applicable statute of limitations from opposing the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession. First, the court ruled that adverse possession could not extinguish a public use to which the land had been dedicated: "The Statute of Limitations was not intended as a bar to the assertion by the public of rights of that character." ( Id. 50 Cal. at p. 275.) Next, it ruled that the city's legal title could not be extinguished by adverse possession: "That is to say, the title was granted to the city in trust, for public use; and the city had no authority . . . to alienate or in any manner dispose of it, but only to hold it for the purposes expressed in the statute. It was granted to the city for public use, and is held for that purpose only. It cannot be conveyed to private persons, and is effectually withdrawn from commerce; and the city having no authority to convey the title, private persons are virtually precluded from acquiring it. The land itself, and not the use only, was dedicated to the public. Land held for that purpose, whether held by the State or a municipality, in our opinion, is not subject to the operation of the Statute of Limitations." (50 Cal. at pp. 275-276.) Thus, Hoadley's holding was premised on the governmental entity's lack of "authority . . . to alienate" property held for public use ( Hoadley, supra, 50 Cal. at p. 275) and the presumably concomitant inability of a private person to acquire it indirectly through the failure of the government to timely bring suit within the statute of limitations.