Gordon v. Booker
Before: Haynes
Synopsis
Boundary Line — Location of Half-section Corner — Survey — Finding against Evidence. — In an action to quiet title to city lots, where the only point in controversy was the location of a half-section line running east and west, which formed the north boundary line of the city, and the controversy turned .upon the location of the half-section corner on the east side of the section, the testimony of the surveyor, who surveyed and platted an addition to the city, and ran the half-section line to which plaintiff claimed, that in surveying it he found a stake which he assumed and believed to be the half-section corner, taken in connection with the testimony of five other witnesses, including three professional surveyors, that the corner from which the survey was made was a “charcoal” or “government” corner, in the absence of any evidence showing that a stake or corner had ever been seen at a different place in that vicinity, is sufficient to establish it as a government corner; and a finding that the line was twenty-four feet north of the line so surveyed, based on a survey and measurement by courses and distances from the southeast corner of another section, a distance of a mile and half south of the stake in question, is unsupported by the evidence.
Id. — Monuments Control Courses and Distances — Evidence of Survey. — The monuments or marks placed upon the ground by the surveyor in making a survey constitute the survey, and the courses and distances are only evidence of the survey. Although evidence based upon courses and distances from other known points is admissible to fix a corner, where no corner is found, it is not admissible to change the location of an original corner of the survey when found.
Id. — Line of Government Survey — Lower Order of Evidence — Support op Finding—Immaterial Conflict. —Where the existence of the monuments established by a government surveyor in making the original survey are proved, evidence of a line of the survey based upon courses and distances, being of a lower order than evidence thereof based upon the monuments, raises no material conflict in support of a finding as to the location of the line, unless it demonstrates to a reasonable probability that the monuments as found upon the ground are not those established by the original survey.
Id.—Locating Line of Half-section — Starting-point—Survey by Courses and Distances. — In locating the line of a government half-section, a survey from a remote corner of another section by courses and distances is more liable to error than a survey by courses and distances from the nearest established corner of the same section.
Id. — Direction of Half-section Line —Monuments Control. —When the half-section corner on each side of a section are definitely located, the half-section line must be drawn from one corner to the other, regardless of its variation from the due east and west course.
Haynes, C. This action is brought by plaintiff to quiet title to certain lots in the Central Addition to the city of Fresno. The defendant had judgment, and the plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The half-section line running east and west through section 4 is the north boundary line of the city of Fresno. Plaintiff’s lots lie on the north side of this line, and defendant’s on the south side.
The point in controversy is the location of this half-section line, and, upon the trial, that point turned upon the location of the half-section corner on the east line of section 4.
Teilman surveyed and platted Central Addition, and ran the half-section line, and plaintiff claims to this line. The court found the line to be twenty-four feet north of the line so surveyed.
In making this survey, Teilman found a stake which he assumed and believed to be the half-section corner. Five other witnesses, at least three of them being professional surveyors, testified that the corner from which Teilman made his survey was a “charcoal” or “government” corner; and there was no evidence tending to [588]show that a stake or corner had ever been seen at a different place in that vicinity. This testimony was prima facie sufficient to establish it as a government corner, and to justify a finding to that effect.
The finding of the court was based on a survey and measurement from the southeast corner of section 9, a distance of a mile and a half south of the stake in question.
A ditch or canal had been dug on the south line of section 9, and for several miles east of that section. Defendant’s witness, who dug this canal, testified that he took up the stakes and set them on the south side of the canal, but the distance they were removed is not definitely shown. But assuming that the southeast corner of section 9 was definitely established, a survey from that point could be used but for one purpose, viz., to show that the half-section corner in question was not in fact a government corner. It could not be used to show that the government surveyor made an error in placing it there.
In Hall v. Tanner, 4 Pa. St. 244, 45 Am. Dec. 687, it was said: “It has ever been held that the marks on the ground constitute the survey; that the courses and distances are only evidence of the survey.” This court, in Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 629, said: “ Preference is given to monuments, because they are least liable to mistake and in the same case, quoting from Fulwood v. Graham, 1 Rich. 497, said “ that in locating lands we are to resort,— 1. To natural boundaries; 2. To artificial marks; 3. To adjacent boundaries; 4. To courses and distances; but it has never been said that each of these occupied an inflexible position. It sometimes might occur that an inferior means of location might control a higher, when it was plain there was a mistake.”
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)