Helm v. Wilson

California Supreme Court Jun 26, 1891 No. No. 13214Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding the burden of proof for an agreed boundary line, the irrelevance of improvements to title, or the modification of an estoppel instruction.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury that improvements made by the defendant did not affect the plaintiff's right to recover.
Whether the trial court erred in instructing that an agreed boundary line must be 'distinctly' established by parol agreement.
Whether the trial court erred in modifying the defendant's requested instruction on estoppel.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It was not and is not questioned that the plaintiff owned the land, unless the defendant had acquired title to it as against him; and if he did own it, certainly his action could not be defeated by a showing that defendant had placed improvements”

“the jury were simply told that, to make such an agreement effective, it must have been distinctly made; that is, the minds of the parties must have fully met. In this we see no error prejudicial to the defendant.”

Synopsis

Ejectment—Defenses—Improvements — Instructions as to Verdict. — In an action of ejectment, where it appeared that the plaintiff owned the land, unless the defendant had acquired a title to it by adverse possession or by reason of an alleged agreement between the grantors of both parties for a division line, an instruction to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, unless the defendant had acquired title in some one of the ways claimed by him, and that “ the fact that the defendant has placed improvements upon the property in dispute ” should not make any difference with the verdict to be given in the case, is not erroneous, although the answer had also pleaded the improvements as a set-off to damages and rent.

Id. — Agreed Line — Parol Evidence — Burden of Proof — Instruction. — An instruction to the effect that the burden was upon the defendant to establish the agreed division line by parol testimony, and that unless the line claimed by him was distinctly agreed upon by the adjacent owners, the jury could not find in his favor upon the theory of an agreed line, is not erroneous or misleading as impliedly excluding parol evidence to prove the agreed line from the acts, situation, acquiescence, and relations of the parties.

Id. — Estoppel in Pais — Modification of Instruction Asked. — When an instruction requested by the defendent upon the subject of estoppel does not contain all the elements of an estoppel in pais, and might properly have been refused, it is not ground of reversal for the court to modify it, and give it as modified, if the jury is not misled and the defendant is not prejudiced by the instruction as modified.

Belcher, is the second appeal in this case. The decision on the first appeal is reported in 76 California, 476, and the facts involved in the case are there very fully stated. The new trial again resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff, from which, and from an order refusing a new trial, defendant appeals.

The question in controversy was as to the true location of the line dividing the lands of plaintiff and defendant. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, and then alleged that while the line was uncertain and in dispute, the grantors of plaintiff and defendant agreed upon and established the line claimed by defendant as the true line, and erected and maintained a fence thereon; that they and their successors in interest thereafter, till the commencement of this action, acquiesced in the line so agreed upon and established, and respectively held and claimed possession up to the same. The defendant further, “ as a set-off for all damages and rents claimed by the plaintiff, or that may be recovered by him,” alleged that he had placed certain permanent improvements upon the disputed strip of land, and that in the erection of the improvements he acted in good faith, and believed he had a good title to the said strip.

At the trial, the evidence upon most of the issues raised by the answer was conflicting. The court gave to the jury eight instructions at the request of the plaintiff, and six at the request of the defendant. These instructions state the law applicable to each party’s theory of the case, and should be read together; when so read, they seem to cover the whole case, and to be clear and explicit.

The only points made in support of the appeal are, that the court erred in giving the sixth and seventh instructions asked by the plaintiff, and in modifying one of the instructions asked by the defendant,

[596]The sixth instruction was to the effect that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, unless the defendant had acquired title to the land in dispute in some one of the ways set up in his answer, “ and the fact that defendant has placed improvements upon the property in dispute should not make a.ny difference with the verdict you should give in the case.”

We see no error in this instruction. It was not and is not questioned that the plaintiff owned the land, unless the defendant had acquired title to it as against him; and if he did own it, certainly his action could not be defeated by a showing that defendant had placed improvements upon it.

Helm v. Wilson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief