Wagner v. City of Inglewood (1921) · DecisionDepot

Wagner v. City of Inglewood

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jun 29, 1921 No. Civ. No. 3588.Published

Before: James

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the annexation proceedings were valid because the description of the territory was sufficiently definite and the court properly took judicial notice of official government survey maps.

Issues

Whether the description of the territory in the annexation resolution was sufficiently definite to be valid.
Whether the court could take judicial notice of official government survey maps that included section lines extending into private land grants.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“if the description contained in the resolution was sufficiently definite to have answered for a private grant or conveyance, it would be sufficient for annexation purposes.”

“the court was justified in looking to that map, and in taking judicial notice of all of the boundaries officially expressed thereon.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

JAMES, J.

Plaintiffs, alleging themselves to he property owners within certain territory proposed to be annexed by the municipality of Inglewood, brought this action to secure judgment declaring proceedings theretofore taken on the part of the municipality in the direction of effecting such annexation void, and to secure a decree enjoining said city from holding an election to decide the question of annexation. Demurrer to the complaint was overruled and answer was filed. The cause went to trial, judgment being rendered against the plaintiffs. From that judgment this appeal has been taken.

It is contended that the evidence does not sustain the findings of the court as to the issue made by the pleadings respecting the boundaries of the district proposed to be annexed. It is because of alleged uncertainty in the boundaries described in the resolution of the board of trustees that the plaintiffs make their principal contention against the validity of the proceedings. It is first contended that the lines stated in that description as being lines of sections 22, 27, and 34,' township 2 south, R. 14 west, S. B. M., did not constitute such a description as would enable persons interested to determine the boundaries fixed by those lines, because there was no map on file as a public record showing that official surveys had been made of which the court might take judicial notice.

[1]

Preliminarily it may be stated that if the description contained in the resolution was sufficiently definite to have answered for a private grant or conveyance, it would be sufficient for annexation purposes.

(In re Madera Irr. Dist.,

92 Cal. 296, [27 Am. St. Rep. 106,

[358]

14 L. R. A. 755, 28 Pac. 272];

Central Irr. Dist.

De Lappe,

79 Cal. 351, [21 Pac. 825].)

[2]

And under section 1875 of the Code of Civil Procedure the courts will take judicial notice of government surveys of public lands as public and official acts of the executive department of the United States.

Related research

130 Cal. 136, [62 Pac. 385].) It is admitted by the appellants that if at the time of the making of the resolution there was of record any map made under the official direction of the United States land surveyors, which map showed all of the lines referred to in the description contained in the resolution, such description would then be sufficient—this with the qualification that a map so made and existing must have been a map of the public lands of the United States. The qualification pre sents the contention that even though, through governmental agencies, official surveys are made, platted, and recorded, judicial notice will only be taken of such portions of the map as delineate the public lands, and not portions showing lines projected upon lands owned in private. In order to better understand the contentions of appellants it is necessary to make a further statement of facts: Upon the acquisition of the territory of California from the government of Mexico, certain grants of land were held by individuals under authority of the latter government, which grants were later confirmed by the United States. In 1873 there was patented to one Abila by our government a large tract of land in and about the present municipal limits of the city of Inglewood under the name of Rancho Sausal Redondo. A patent and a map defining the boundaries of the grant were filed in the office of the United States surveyor-general at San Francisco, and a copy was recorded in the office of the county recorder of Los Angeles County at about the same time. The boundaries of that rancho at the north and east were irregular in that they were not coincident with the south boundary line of section 22, or the west boundary line of sections 27 and 34 of the township mentioned, but were so laid that the rancho included portions of the southerly part of section 22 the westerly part of sections 27 and 34. With this condition in mind, appellants use it as a basis for the argument that the sections of the public land,

AI Brief

Synopsis

JAMES, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief