Reynier v. Elton

GRAY, C.

This is an action in ejectment. Plaintiff obtained judgment in his favor, and defendants appeal from an order denying them a new trial.

The plaintiff owned lands adjoining defendants’ lands on the east, their common boundary being a line drawn through the section from north to south, parallel with and 80 rods west of the east line of section 35, in township 4 north, range 15 west, San Bernardino meridian. The lands in controversy are located in Los Angeles County. The parties to the suit agree as to the location of the northeast corner of said section 35, and consequently they are in agreement as to the north end of their dividing line, but as to the south end of said line they are in disagreement to the extent of about 700 feet. It is

[305]

claimed by the appellants that the southeast corner of said section is 714 feet west of the point claimed by plaintiff, and found by the court to be said corner.

The only point urged in support of the appeal is, that the court fixed the corner in the wrong place; that by the evidence the corner is shown to be 714 feet west of the corner as found by the court.

We think the finding as to the location of the corner in question is supported by the evidence; and without attempting to quote such evidence in full, we will give the principal features of it tending most strongly to support the action of the court below. In the first place, the corner found by the court had been recognized as the true corner for a great many years by those residing in the immediate neighborhood. It is undisputed that upwards of nine years before the trial of this case appellants’ predecessor in title recognized the corner found by the court as the true corner, and cut the timber up to a certain line established in accordance therewith. Next, it is shown that the section lines in the vicinity of this corner have been traced out by two apparently disinterested surveyors, and after a comparison of what they find on the ground with the field-notes of the government surveys, they give it as their unqualified opinion that the true corner is at the point where the finding of the court fixes it. At this said point they find a monument consisting of a pile of loose stones, in the center of which is a stone 18 x 12 x 8 inches, as one witness testifies, and as another says, 18 x 10 x 10 inches. Both' of these witnesses agree, however, that this stone had one notch on one corner and five on another, and the evidence tends strongly to show that, so marked, it indicated the common corners of sections 35 and 36 in said township, and sections 1 and 2 in the township adjoining on the south. The field-notes called for a stone at the corner in question, 20 x 12 x 8 inches, set fifteen inches in the ground, and four witness-trees marked as such, one being located in each of the four cornering sections, the courses and distances from the corner being given. One witness-tree was found with surveyor’s marks, indicating its character as a witness-tree of the corner in dispute. This tree is in the course from the stone monument indicated by the field-notes, and corresponds therewith in description, allowing for a difference of upwards of twenty years’ growth since the