Mendenhall v. Paris
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Quieting Title —■ Patent Confirming Mexican Grant. — Evidence of the plaintiff, in an action to quiet title, tending to show that the premises in controversy were, within the patented lines of a confirmed Mexican grant, under which he deraigus title, is sufficient to make at least a prima facie ease in his favor.
Boundaries — Intermediate Monument — Common Boundarv as a Terminal Monument. — While courses and distances in boundary lines are controlled by monuments, yet an arroyo, described in a patent confirming a Mexican grant as being at an intermediate point on a boundary at a certain distance from a station at the end of the line, is not entirely controlling as to such distance, or as to the locality of such station, if the station at the terminal point is further described as being at the intersection of the line with the boundary of an adjoining grant, the true location of which is settled and undisputed, and which operates as a natural boundary or monument, it being the evident purpose of the survey for the patent to make such latter boundary common to the two grants, and not to leave a long narrow gore between them, which would result if the distance of the station from the arroyo should control as to the terminus of the line.
Belcher, C. C. This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit in an action to quiet title to 51.20 acres of land in Alameda County. The land in controversy is described as a strip three and one half miles long, 4.62 chains wide at one end, and running to a point at the other end.
The plaintiff alleged in his complaint that the strip was a part of a Mexican grant called the rancho El Valle de San José, which was patented by the United States to Antonio Sunol and others on the 15th of March, 1865. The defendants denied that the strip constituted any part of the rancho named, or that plaintiff had any title thereto.
It is admitted that plaintiff proved at the trial, by mesne conveyances from the patentees, that he had sufficient interest in the strip to entitle him to have judgment entered in his favor, provided it was shown to be included within the patented lines of the grant. And whether it was so shown or not, that is to say, sufficiently to make a prima facie case, is the only question discussed by counsel and presented for decision.
The strip lies along the southwesterly side of a Mexican grant called rancho Las Pocitas, the preliminary survey of which was made in 1854 by one Lewis. The survey of the patented land which is involved in this case was made some ten years later by one La Croze. At the time of the trial, Lewis and La Croze were both dead. The dispute is as to whether or not the northeasterly line surveyed by La Croze is the same as the southwesterly line surveyed by Lewis; and the question depends upon the true location of what is called station 25.
To determine this question, it is only necessary to look at two lines described in the patent, the easterly and northeasterly. The first begins at station 24, and runs due north 458 chains and 75 links “to a post marked ‘ V. S. J. 25’ station, at intersection of line with the pre[195]liminary survey of the rancho Las Pocitas.” It is described as crossing the Arroyo Mocho at 456 chains and 50 links, or 2 chains and 25 links, south of the station. The second line begins at station 25, and runs ‘ thence along said line” north 51 degrees 45 minutes west, 279 chains “ to an oak-tree three feet in diameter, marked ‘ V. S. J. 26 ’ station, and old corner of the rancho Las Pocitas.” Stations 24 and 26 are still found clearly marked on the ground, and there is no controversy as to their true location.
The Lewis line was retraced in 1874 by one Carlton, a United States deputy surveyor, under an appointment by the surveyor-general “ to examine and verify the line and establish the boundary of the El Valle de San José rancho, running from station 24 to station 25”; and it is admitted that the line was correctly retraced and located. It was found to run from station 26 south 51 degrees and 49 minutes east, thus varying four minutes from the corresponding line described in the patent, and it met the line running north from station 24 about seven chains north of the Arroyo Mocho. There was nothing on the ground to indicate, and no evidence was offered to show, where station 25 was actually located by La Croze. It was relocated by Carlton at the point where the two lines last mentioned met.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)