Higgins v. Ragsdale (1890) · DecisionDepot

Higgins v. Ragsdale

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

California Supreme Court Feb 28, 1890 No. No. 13261Published

Before: Vanclief

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the motion for nonsuit was properly denied because the plaintiff's evidence tended to prove the case, and any deficiency regarding the use of uncertified field-notes was cured when the defendant introduced certified copies.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion for a nonsuit?
Was the plaintiff's evidence sufficient to establish that the section corner was lost?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There can be no question that the testimony of Uren tended to prove plaintiff’s case, and therefore that the motion for nonsuit was properly denied.”

“If the testimony of Uren was deficient by reason of bis having been guided by an uncertified copy of the field-notes, the deficiency was supplied by defendant”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County, and from an order denying a new trial.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Vanclief,C. C. — Action of ejectment for a narrow strip of land containing about two and two thirds acres.

The parties are owners of adjoining lands. The division line between them is one of the lines surveyed [220]by the United States government dividing a section into quarters. Their disagreement as to the true location of this division line was the only issue tried.

The judgment was for plaintiff, from which, and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

The onl}’r point made by the appellant is, that the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a nonsuit.

A part of the testimony for the plaintiff was that of C. E. Uren, as follows: —

“ I am a surveyor and civil engineer. I know the lines in controversy. I went upon the ground this spring at the request of plaintiff to make a survey to establish the corner. I sought for the missing corner, and could not find it. The north and south section corners are in place, and are easily discoverable without the aid of field-notes. Not being able to find the corner, I established it as a lost corner by dividing the distance between the two section corners equally. The line is over a mile long, while the survey calls for a mile long only. I examined carefully all the marks that would aid me. I discovered a line of blazed trees from the south stake, which were originally line-trees. I followed along the same, and at half a mile set a stake, near which and about right distance and direction was the remains of a yellow pine stump badly burned, but which I believe was the bearing-tree.

“The only pine-tree which is now standing has two blazes on the west side, which are old, and made quartering just like line blazes. This tree could not be a witness-tree. I examined it very carefully. It has a large burned place on the side defendant claims the stake to be, and facing stake. There is no mark outside the burned place. Surveyors do not make bearing-marks on dead trees or burned wood.

“About two hundred and fifty feet south of the pine is an oak eighteen feet east of my line with old blaze on [221]

Higgins v. Ragsdale

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief