## Facts

- Covillaud and others possessed a tract of land at what became Marysville beginning in 1849.
- The tract’s boundaries were physically marked and effectively enclosed by the Yuba River, a slough, and two ditches forming the remaining sides.
- The possessors made improvements on parts of the tract, including a trading post, a corral, and a wheat field.
- The disputed city lot was not within the wheat field or corral but was within the larger enclosed tract.
- As Marysville developed, Covillaud laid out the tract into lots and streets and continued acts of ownership by selling lots, including the lot later conveyed to Plume.
- Seward and Thompson were in actual possession of the disputed lot when Plume sued in ejectment based on his conveyance from Covillaud.
- The trial court granted a nonsuit after plaintiff’s evidence, reasoning that the lot itself lacked separate improvements showing actual possession.

## Issues

1. Whether prior peaceable possession of an enclosed tract—shown by marked boundaries, occupation and improvements on part of the tract, and continued acts of ownership—constitutes prima facie title and sufficient possession to maintain ejectment against later occupants of a lot within the tract.
2. Whether the trial court erred by granting a nonsuit instead of submitting the sufficiency of plaintiff’s possession evidence to the jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed the nonsuit and remanded.
- Prior peaceable possession, when shown by actual occupation of part of a clearly bounded tract and continuous acts of ownership, is prima facie evidence of title sufficient to support ejectment against a later possessor who shows no better title.
- Plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to go to the jury; the trial court improperly removed the case from jury consideration.

## Legal Principles

- Possession is prima facie evidence of title and can support an ejectment action against a subsequent possessor absent proof of superior title.
- The required possession must be actual and bona fide occupation (*possessio pedis*), reflecting control of the premises rather than mere assertions or casual acts.
- The character and extent of possession depend on the nature and locality of the property; full cultivation or improvement of every portion is not required.
- Marked boundaries and enclosure, coupled with occupation and improvement of part, may extend possession to the entire tract within the defined limits.
- Subdividing land into lots and streets and selling lots may evidence continued dominion and is not, without more, abandonment.

## Conclusion

The court held that plaintiff’s showing of prior possession through a defined enclosure, partial improvements, and continued acts of ownership created prima facie title adequate for ejectment and required submission to a jury, making the nonsuit erroneous.


Plume v. Seward, 4 Cal. 94 (Cal. 1854)