Williams v. Barnett

California Court of Appeal Sep 23, 1955 No. Civ. 5043Published

Before: Shell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence supported the trial court's determination of the true boundary line and that the doctrine of agreed boundary was inapplicable because the true boundary was ascertainable and no valid agreement existed to fix a different line.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's judgment regarding the true boundary line of the property.
Whether the doctrine of agreed boundary line applies when the true boundary is ascertainable from the deed.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The doctrine of our law that coterminous owners may by agreement, implied from acquiescence, establish and fix their mutual boundary line, is applicable only where the true line is otherwise unknown or uncertain.”

“Where there is an acquiescence in a wrong boundary, when the true boundary may be ascertained by the deed, it is treated both in law and equity as a mistake, and neither party is estopped from claiming to the true line.”

SHELL, J. pro tem.

Four separate causes of action were set up by plaintiff’s complaint, the first for a decree quieting title to certain land and the other three for the recovery of certain sums of money. Pursuant to an oral stipulation entered into in open court, judgment was to be entered on the second and third causes of action in favor of the party or parties who might prevail on the first cause of action, and, in any event, in favor of the plaintiff on the fourth cause of action. Judgment was entered in favor of defendants Alvin S. Barnett and Sina J. Barnett, upon the first cause of action, and pursuant to the stipulation, upon the second and third causes of action and in favor of plaintiff on the

[609]

fourth cause of action. Plaintiff presented a motion for a new trial, that motion was denied, and plaintiff appeals from the judgment on the first three causes of action.

By its judgment the trial court decreed that defendant Alvin S. Barnett is the owner and entitled to the possession of the land described in the complaint, as follows:

All that certain land situated in the Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:

The West 25.15 feet of the Bast 298.33 feet of Lot 13 of “Anaheim Extension,’’ as shown on a map made by William Hamel and filed in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California; excepting therefrom the South 176.75 feet.

The trial court also decreed that plaintiff Eunice Williams is not now and never was the owner or entitled to the possession of said land, or any part thereof, and that said plaintiff has no right, title, interest or estate in or to said land, or any part thereof.

Appellant urges that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. She specifically disclaims any contention that the evidence establishes any prescriptive title in her to the disputed strip of property.

An appellate court must accept as true the evidence most favorable and discard that unfavorable to the respondent. If the evidence so viewed is sufficient as a matter of law, the judgment must be affirmed.

Williams v. Barnett

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief