
    JAMES B. McMINN, Respondent, v. WILLIAM MAYES, Appellant.
    
      üjegtment, Evidence in. — In ejectment, the plaintiff may offer in evidence a deed to the defendant, in order to explain the latter’s possession.
    Idem — Plainton Entitled to Impbovemenis. — The plaintiff is as much entitled to recover the improvements, which are fixtures, as the land.
    Appeal from tbe Superior Court of tbe City of San Francisco.
    Tbis was an action to recover a piece of land on Sansome street, in tbe City of San Francisco. <
    Tbe plaintiff first offered in evidence a deed for tbe land, from B, W. Williams to bimself, dated 27tb November, 1852.
    Tbe plaintiff tben offered in evidence a certified copy of a deed from William Devier, Street Commissioner, to defendant, dated September 27tb, 1851. Tbis deed recites, tbat tbe land was formerly owned by and assessed to Palmer & Williams, in said city; tbat $161 70 bad been assessed against it for grading and planting Sansome street, and tbat said sum bad not been paid, and tbe land bad been  sold to tbe defendant for * one year and eleven months, in consideration of bis agreeing to pay said assessment.
    Tbe plaintiff proved by D. O. Sbattuct tbat Williams and bis partner, Palmer, occupied tbe land in tbe spring of 1850; tbat Williams sold out bis interest in tbe business to Palmer, and leased tbe lot to Palmer, wbo continued to occupy it as tbe tenant of Williams, until tbe bouses on it were destroyed by tbe fire in May or June, 1851. When Williams leased tbe lot to Palmer, be went to Humboldt Bay, and made witness bis attorney in fact, to collect tbe rent and attend to tbe property; after tbe bouses were burnt down, witness stuck up a card on tbe lot, giving notice it was for rent. Once witness called, in the fall of 1851, and saw defendant on it, putting up a house, and asked him what right he had there. The defendant replied, that he had purchased the lot for the term of one year and eleven months, for the non-payment of street assessments, and had entered under that purchase.
    The defendant offered evidence to show the value of his improvements.
    The defendant asked for various instructions in his favor on the points noticed in the opinion, which were refused, and a judgment being rendered against him, he appealed.
    
      Ryan <& Gunnison, for Appellant.
    
      Sloan, for Respondent.
    
      
       Commented on in Bird v. Bisbros, 9 Cal. 5. See Bequette v. Caulfield, post 278»
    
   Mr. J. Heyueneeldt

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

The prior possession of Williams, the plaintiff’s grantor, was sufficient to maintain a recovery in ejectment.

Nor is it affected by the occupation of Palmer, which is explained by proof of his tenancy under Williams, up to the fire of May, 1851. The fair deduction from the record is, that at that period, the tenancy of Palmer ceased, and, consequently, Williams was entitled to possession, and the acts of Shattuek, as his agent, removes any idea of his abandonment of the premises.

The only effect of the deed from the Street Commissioner to *the defendant, was to explain the latter’s possession, and so far by admitting its validity, its introduction was a direct benefit to the defendant, for, without it, plaintiff would have been entitled to recover mesne profits for the whole time of the defendant’s occupation. No demand of the premises was necessary, because the parties did not bear the relation of landlord and tenant. The plaintiff was as much entitled to recover the improvements, which were fixtures, as the land.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.  