Northern Railway v. Jordan

Boundary — Natural Monuments — Shore Line — Courses and Distances.— Where there is a conflict between the natural boundary, or shore line, and the line as given by courses and distances in the description of land, the former must control.

Pleadings — Support op Judgment—Appeal. — A judgment cannot be rendered which will settle rights between litigants, unless the pleadings are framed to support it.

Ejectment — Verdict and Judgment — Uncertain Description — Appeal. — In an action of ejectment, a verdict, and judgment based thereupon, that plaintiff is entitled to the possession of land described by boundaries not corresponding to the complaint or answer, or to any documentary evidence in the case, and not mentioning any natural monuments, nor fixing the location of the lands, directly, or by reference to anything in the record, or elsewhere, will be set aside upon appeal for uncertainty in description.

Id. — Substitution of Plaintiff — Amended Complaint — Evidence of Title — Conveyance Pendente Lite — Supplemental Pleading. — The vendee of a plaintiff in ejectment who is substituted as plaintiff under an order of court providing that all the allegations and denials of the pleadings should apply to him if the complaint as amended alleges that he was the owner at the time of bringing suit, must stand upon such allegation, and prove himself the owner at that time, and evidence is inadmissible of a deed from the original plaintiff to him, executed after the commencement of the action.

Id. — Evidence — Disputed Boundary — Call of Patent — Question for Jury.—In an action of ejectment, where a question of disputed boundary is involved, evidence tending to show the location of a certain house, which was one of the calls of a United States patent issued to the defendants, is admissible, the question whether the evidence is sufficient to prove such fact being for the jury to determine.

Verdiot against Law — Instructions — Question of Pact. — A verdict cannot be said to be against law, as contrary to the instructions of the court, because inconsistent with the facts as maintained by one party, if the jury might, upon the evidence, have decided the question of fact contrary to such party, aud consistently with the instructions.

Tide-lands — Certificate of Purchase — Patent — Curative Act — Case Affirmed. — A certificate of purchase of tide-lands, issued prior to the curative act of March 27, 1872, was validated by that act, and a patent from the state for such lands, issued subsequent to the passage of that act, and pursuant to the prior certificate, vests title in the patentee. (Upham v. Boshing, 62 Cal. 250, affirmed.)