McLean v. Baldwin

McFARLAND, J.

This is an action to quiet title to a certain piece of land. The defendant Garvey made default, and defendant Temple disclaimed. Defendant Baldwin answered, denying that plaintiff had any title or right to the premises described in the complaint, averring his ownership thereof, setting up a certain judgment in bar of plaintiff’s action, and praying for judgment decreeing that plaintiff has no title to said land, and that defendant is the owner thereof. The trial court found that plaintiff had no title or right to or in the premises, or any part thereof, and that defendant was the owner of certain land described in the judgment. There are two transcripts on appeal in the case, Nos. 1648 and 1573, and these transcripts present three appeals by plaintiff—one from the judgment, another from an order denying a motion made under section 663% of the Code of Civil Procedure to render a different judgment, and the third from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a

[616]

new trial. They were all submitted at the same time and will be considered together.

The evidence, including testimony of witnesses, former judgments and other documents, and the findings and judgments herein, present a case which is confused, uncertain, and unsatisfactory. Indeed, it is difficult to discover what, if anything, the findings and judgment do definitely determine. It might almost be imagined that the parties and their predecessors have been trying to keep open opportunities for the luxury of future litigation.

The action is to quiet title to a small piece of land lying along the boundary lines between two large adjoining tracts of land—one known as the Rancho Potrero de Felipe Lugo, lying on the east, and the other known as the Rancho La Merced, lying on the west. In 1872 both of these ranches were owned by F. P. E. Temple, who was the common source of title of all the parties. In 1873 he gave to the son, John H. Temple, a piece of land lying along the boundary line of said ranchos, containing about seventy-five acres, and known as the John H. Temple homestead. The plaintiff in the case at bar claims through mesne conveyances from said John H. Temple—the deeds running from said Temple to one A. N. Davidson, from Davidson to E. TI. Watkins, from Watkins to his wife, and from Watkins and wife to the present plaintiff.

The main question in the case is whether the land here in controversy is on the east or the west side of the boundary line between the two ranchos. Defendant contends that the boundary is a line called the “Stevenson line,” to be noticed hereafter, while plaintiff contends that the line is “the westerly boundary line of the Rancho Potrero de Felipe Lugo as said line was surveyed by L. Seebold in August, 1874.” If the Stevenson line is, for the purpose of this case, to be taken as the right line, then the judgment is correct; if the Seebold line is the right one, then the judgment is erroneous, at least as to a larger part of the land in controversy.