Howard v. Cunningham

BEASLY, J.,

pro

tem.

This action arises out of a dispute over a boundary line. The plaintiff, James L. Howard, is the owner of lot 15 and eight and one-half acres off the north end of lot 18 of the Yokayo Rancho, near Ukiah, in Mendocino County, and the defendant, Ruddiek, is the owner of the remainder of lot 18, which he acquired from his codefendant, E. L. Cunningham. Plaintiff’s father formerly owned the two lots, and some years ago he conveyed to the plaintiff the land now owned by him as above stated, and the part now owned by Ruddiek he conveyed to another son, by name Mack Howard, who in turn conveyed it to Cunningham.

The sole point in this case is whether the evidence supports the ,finding against plaintiff of the location of one of the corner posts common to the two properties. The location of this post determines the boundary line between the prop

[230]

erties of the plaintiff and of Ruddiek. The stake has long since disappeared.

The calls of the deed by which plaintiff’s father acquired the land now owned by plaintiff, and of the deed conveying it to the latter, both locate this corner—which is described as “P 8”—at the point which is found to have been its location by the trial court.

Oral evidence was introduced to discredit the calls of these deeds as to the location of this corner. All the other monuments fixing the boundaries of these properties are in existence, and their location unquestioned. The point of location of stake “P 8” was, it is conceded, in a line at the northerly end of which is a stake marked “P 9,” and at the southerly end of which is a stake marked “P 6.” This line forms the entire westerly boundary of Ruddiek’s land and a part of the westerly boundary of the land of plaintiff. By the calls of the respective deeds of plaintiff and Ruddiek this line from end to end should be 44.49 chains long. It is in fact by actual surveyor’s measurement on the ground .44 chains longer than this, or 44.93 chains in length; and the plaintiff claims that instead of the stake “P 8” being located, as found by the court, 2.19 chains south from the corner “P 9,” it should have been found to be 2.95 chains south therefrom, or 44.98 chains northerly from the corner “P 6.”