Powell v. Allen

HENSHAW, J.

The action is in ejectment, brought to determine the true boundary between lots 25 and 24 in block A of Hammell’s subdivision of lots 31 and 32 of the Workman and Heilman subdivision of lot 2 in block 72 of Hancock’s survey in the city of Los Angeles. Plaintiff claims that defendants, owners of lot 24, have encroached eight feet westerly upon his land, and of this strip eight feet wide possession is sought. Judgment passed for plaintiff, and from that judgment defendants appeal, bringing up the evidence for review upon a bill of exceptions.

[162]

The facts are not in serious controversy, and there is little- or no difference between the litigants as to the principles of law applicable to the question involved. The facts may be briefly summarized as follows: Under the Hancock survey a map was recorded of blocks and lots. The blocks were of' large size, block 72, within which is located the land in controversy, consisting of eight subdivisions containing approximately thirty-five acres each. The westerly half of block 72 passed into the hands of Workman and Heilman, who caused it to be subdivided. In this subdivision certain streets were-delineated and named, and the effort was made to divide-the block into five-acre tracts. In turn, two of these five-acre tracts, 31 and 32, passed into the hands of Hammell, who caused them to be subdivided into lots (speaking generally) of fifty feet frontage. The map showing his subdivision is also of record. In this subdivision lots 19% to 33. inclusive are represented as fifty-foot lots, facing southerly on Willie Street. Lot 33 is the westerly of these lots. Still west of that is lot 1 (a corner lot) with a frontage on Willie-Street of 142 feet, its westerly frontage being on Euclid Street. The record presents the testimony of the engineer Stephenson, who made the survey and plat of the Workman and Hellman subdivision. He testifies that he took for his starting-point the corner stake of the old Hancock survey which marked the common corner of lots 2, 1, 7 and 8. This corner gave the middle line of block 72, and consequently the easterly line of lots 31 and 32, subsequently divided by Hammell. He-testifies also that he plotted Euclid and Willie streets, which first came into existence under the offer of dedication of his recorded map. The boundary between this medial line of' block 72 and the lands to the east, was shown by an old fence, and later by a row of trees, conforming accurately to the initial point evidenced by the stake. No controversy has ever-arisen between the owners of those adjacent tracts as to their true boundary line. No evidence was offered as' to the-method of survey adopted in the map of Hammell’s subdivision, other than the internal evidence upon the face of the-map itself. From this it would appear that the exterior boundaries of the five-acre lots 31 and 32 were delimited by a survey which also commenced at the point indicated by the old. corner stake of the Hancock survey. But this evidence goes-.