Heinlen v. Heilbron

California Supreme Court Dec 30, 1892 No. No. 14489Published

Before: Harrison

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment quieting title in the plaintiff, holding that the trial court's findings were supported by sufficient evidence and that the judge was not disqualified by his subsequent purchase of unrelated land.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding regarding the location of Kings River and the ownership of the disputed lands.
Whether the admission of certified copies of surveys was reversible error when the underlying patents were subsequently admitted.
Whether the trial judge was disqualified by the purchase of land in the vicinity of the disputed area after the case was submitted.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If there be any evidence in support of the finding, the action of the court must be affirmed.”

“The fact that a judge has acted in the trial and decision of any cause must be held conclusive that in his own opinion he was competent to act”

Synopsis

Appeal — Review of Conflicting Evidence — Insufficiency of Evidence. — If there is any evidence in support of the findings of the trial court, no inquiry can be made upon appeal respecting the preponderance of conflicting evidence. It is only where there is no evidence in the record in support of the findings that the decision of the trial court will by reversed upon the ground that it is unsupported by the evidence.

Boundaries — Relative Location of River and of Land — Questions of Fact — Competency of Witnesses — Survey. — The location of a river with reference to a tract of land, and whether any particular tract of land is upon one or the other side of the river, are questions of fact to be determined by the testimony of witnesses, and may be established by the evidence of witnesses having a knowledge of the river and of the land, although they may not have made a survey thereof. The competency of the witnesses and their knowledge of the subject are proper subjects of cross-examination and of determination by the court, as is also the extent and accuracy of any survey of the land which may be testified to.

Id. —Evidence of Surveyor—Completeness of Survey. —Where a witness testified that he had made an actual survey of certain lands in controversy, and that they were situated to the south and east of a river which formed the south and east boundaries of a section of land which embraced the lands so surveyed, it is not essential that he should have surveyed around the whole section in order to determine the location of the lands in question, and his failure to do so does not warrant the rejection of his testimony.

Swamp-lands — State Patent — Evidence — Prerequisite Steps — Survey of Lands — Appeal — Error without Prejudice. — A state patent to swamp-lands is the highest evidence of the transfer from the state of its title to the lands included in the patent, and is also evidence that all the steps prescribed for its issuance, including the survey, had been properly taken, and supersedes all proof of the previous steps; and the introduction of such a patent in evidence renders immaterial any previous error in the rejection of evidence of the survey of the lands embraced in the patent.

Hew Trial — Disqualification of Judge — Purchase of Other Lands in Vicinity — Insufficient Affidavits. — Affidavits showing that after the submission of the cause, and prior to his decision, the judge to whom the cause was submitted purchased lands in the vicinity of the boundary of the main tract, but several miles distant from the lands involved in the action, without showing that the title thereto depended apon the evidence or the law involved in determining the rights of the parties to the action, do not make out a case of disqualification of the judge, in support of a motion for a new trial.

Harrison, J. Action to quiet title. The plaintiff claims title to the lands in question by virtue of certain patents issued to him by the state of California, and the defendants claim that the lands are included within the boundaries of the Rancho Laguna de Tache, of which they are the owners. The lands in question were listed and patented to the state of California by the United States as a portion of the swamp and overflowed lands granted by the act of Congress of September 28, 1850, while the patent for the Rancho Laguna de Tache was issued upon a grant made by the Mexican government in January, 1846, to Manuel Castro, and subsequently confirmed to him by the United States court, and the question controverted before the court below was, whether the lands in question were a portion of those embraced in the patent for the rancho. The lands included in this patent are described as bounded on the south and east by the meanders of Kings River, so that the real question to be determined was the location of Kings River. The court found that the plaintiff was the owner of the lands in controversy, and that the defendants have no interest therein, and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, from which, and from an order denying their motion for a new trial, the defendants have appealed.

[1031]. In their motion for a new trial the defendants assigned as one of the grounds the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision of the court, and specified as the particulars thereof that the evidence showed that the lands were a portion of the Rancho Laguna de Tache.

The finding of the court of the ultimate fact that the plaintiff was the owner of the lands in question includes, as one of the probative facts upon which it depends, the fact that the lands in question are situated to the south and east of Kings River, and this probative fact is the point of attack made by the appellants upon the findings of the court. But upon this controverted point there was testimony upon both sides before the court, and it is a sufficient answer to the appeal that the court has heard the evidence and rendered its decision thereon. Upon an appeal from that decision no inquiry can be made respecting the preponderance of evidence. If there be any evidence in support of the finding, the action of the court must be affirmed. It is only when there is no evidence in the record in support of a finding that a decision of the trial court will be reversed upon the ground that it is unsupported by the evidence.

The location of Kings River with reference to any particular tract of land was a question of fact to be determined upon the testimony of witnesses. Whether any particular section or tract of land is upon one or the other side of the river was also a question of fact, and the determination of these facts depended upon the knowledge which the witnesses had of the river and the land. If the land were a well-defined inclosure, it would be open to the observation of any one, while if its location depended upon an actual survey, it would be more difficult of ascertainment. It cannot be assumed, however, that the location of a township section can be shown only by one who has made an actual survey of its lines. It may be that its position is established by boundaries as definite and well known as those between two co-terminous states or nations. Upon the trial herein,

Heinlen v. Heilbron

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief