
    [No. 3,436.]
    ROMIE et al. v. CASANOVA et al.
    Construction of Alcalde Grant.—An Alcalde granted a lot in the Pueblo of San José to P., describing it as “ situated to the south of the house of the citizen Feliz Buelna and in this municipality.” Held, that the description may he construed to mean south of the lot of Buelna.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, County of Santa Clara.
    The action was ejectment, in which the plaintiffs claimed title under two grants, dated August 14th, 1847, and made by John Hutton, Alcalde of the Pueblo of San José, one' of which granted land in the pueblo to Feliz Buelna, describing it as “on the south end of said town, being bounded northeast by the road to Monterey, northwest by the lot of Francisco Sesena, and by the water on the rear, and containing seventy-five varas in front, and running back on the south line one hundred and fifty varas;” and the other granted land to John F. Romie, described as “on the south end of said town, and being bounded in front by the base line run by James D. Hutton, Esq., and extending from said line to the rear of a lot granted to Feliz Buelna, and being seventy-five varas in front, and having forty-eight varas in depth on the south line.” The defendant claimed under a grant made by Alcalde Feliz Buelna, dated at San José, December 17tli, 1845, translated as follows: “There is granted to the neighbor Bisente Padia a lot of fifty varas front and a hundred deep, this lot being situated to the south of the house of the citizen Feliz Buelna, and in this municipality.” The demanded premises only embraced the land granted to Padia, and when the grant was made the Alcalde placed him in possession of the same, and he built a house on it, and moved into it. Judgment was rendered for the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed.
    
      
      Houghton & Reynolds, for Appellants,
    argued that the house, and not the lot, of Buelna, must be taken as the call in the grant to Padia, and that if the grant was susceptible of location from such a call, it must be made in a parallelogram with the south side of the house, in the center of the base or north line, and cited Chinoweth v. Lessee of Haskell et al. 3 Pet. 96; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 165; Bodlie v. Taylor, 5 id. 225, 226; Shipp v. Miller’s Heirs, 2 Wheaton, 323; Jackson v. Wilkinson, 17 Johnson R. 156.
    
      Archer, for Respondents.
    The construction asked by the appellants would make it appear that the Alcalde granted to Padia the southern fifty varas of his own lot, and delivered to him, not that property, but property adjoining it. The language of the grant does not require such a construction. The word house, in the grant, should be taken to mean lot.
   By the Court:

The Court below finds that the demanded premises were granted by the Alcalde to the defendant’s grantor in 1845, and that juridical possession thereof was given. We think the evidence justifies the finding. The words in the grant, “this lot being situated to the south of the house of the citizen Buelna,” do not necessarily imply that the lot was immediately adjoining the house of Buelna. It may well have been, where the Court finds it was, to the south of the Buelna lot.

Judgment and order affirmed.  