Is there any case law in which defendants have been found not to have "color of title" but to have done so in adverse possession?

Having concluded that defendants did not have "color of title," we question whether defendants proved the other kind of adverse possession which, according to Kimball v. Lohmas (1866) 31 Cal. 154, 159, arises "where the possession is taken by bow and spear without color of title, but with the intent to claim the fee exclusive of any other right and to hold it against all comers, * * * " It is not clear from the record whether the type of adverse possession intended to be found by the court was the "color of title" variety or that of the "bow and spear." Either type requires acts of possession of the mineral rights for at least five years prior to the filing of the actions. Whether we assume that the descriptions of "Section 31" or "all of Section 31" in the instruments which defendants claim gave them color of title did give color of title, or whether we consider the bow and spear type of possession, defendants' claims of adverse possession fail because there were not acts of possession of the mineral rights for the requisite period.

The finding that for more than five years defendants and their predecessors experienced

Page 365

3. Effect of Action 1870: