Taylor v. McConigle

California Supreme Court Feb 15, 1898 No. L. A. No. 248Published

Before: McFarland

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment quieting title in favor of the defendant, finding that the evidence supported the trial court's determination of the river's location at the time of the survey and that the patent description was conclusive. The court also held that the costs bill was timely filed because the entry of judgment had been stayed by the non-payment of reporter's fees.

Issues

Whether the trial court's finding regarding the location of the river at the time of the survey was supported by the evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding oral declarations of grantors regarding land boundaries.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting the Leighton survey and map into evidence.
Whether the costs bill was filed within the time permitted by statute.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment and orders appealed from are affirmed.”

Synopsis

Boundary of Mexican Grant—Thread of Changeable Stream—Course at Time of Official Survey—Appeal—Support of Finding—Conflicting Evidence.—In an action to quiet title to a strip of land, the boundary of which is determined by the location of the thread of a changeable stream in the course occupied by it at the time of the survey of a Mexican grant by the United States surveyor, upon a decree of confirmation thereof, where the evidence is substantially conflicting as to its location at that time, the finding of the court below thereupon cannot be disturbed upon appeal.

Id.—Description in Patent—Fieldnotes of Survey—Location of Thread of Stream—Calls for Fixed Points and Courses and Distances.— Where the fieldnotes of the survey, which constitute the description in the United States patent confirming a Mexican grant, make certain calls for fixed points and courses and distances therefrom to the thread of a stream on the east side of the land in contest, which lead to a place where such thread might naturally have been, and where witnesses testified and the court found that it was located at the time of the survey, such other calls strongly tend to show that the thread was where they indicate, and that the surveyor intended to locate it and did locate it there, and the conclusion of the court that it was there located is strongly confirmed by such fieldnotes.

Id.—Evidence—Oral Declarations of Grantors—Hearsay.—Oral declarations of the grantors of the plaintiff in an action to quiet title are hearsay and inadmissible against defendants who do not claim or hold title under the parties who made the declaration.

Id.—Survey and Map Referred to in Deeds.—An old survey and map generally known, and referred to in deeds as matter of description, are admissible in evidence in connection with the deeds, and also with the testimony of witnesses for the appellant referring thereto.

Id.—Action to Quiet Title—Suit for Tract of Land—Issue as to Narrow Strip—Form of Judgment.—In an action to quiet title, where the complaint asserted title to a large tract of land, which the defendant denied for want of knowledge or information, but asserted claim only to a narrow strip, which was the only land in controversy between the parties, it is sufficient for the court by its judgment to adjudicate ■ and determine the issue touching the strip of land in contest, which are the only issues before the court.

Bill of Costs—Time for Filing—Stay of Entry of Judgment—Notice Claiming Reporter’s Fees.—Where the entry of judgment is stayed, a bill of costs may be filed at any time before such entry is made, though more than five days may have elapsed after notice of the decision; and under section 274 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it existed before the amendment of 1895, the service of notice upon the clerk that the reporter’s fees had not been paid worked a stay of the entry of judgment, unless the court otherwise ordered.

McFARLAND, J. This is an action to quiet title to certain land. It was brought against McConigle and others; but Mc-Conigle was the only defendant served, and there was a trial between him and plaintiff which resulted in a judgment for the defendant. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, from an order denying his motion for a new trial, and from an order refusing to strike out defendant’s costs bill.

The premises in contest consist of a narrow strip of land running north and south parallel with the San Buena Ventura river; and the question in the case is whether, in 1860, when the final survey of the Mexican grant called the Rancho San Miguelito was made, the said river was on the east or the west side of said strip of land.

The final survey was made by a survevor named Terrell; and he was instructed by the United States surveyor general to make it in accordance with the decree of confirmation. By the decree the rancho was confirmed to the claimants thereof, “to the extent of two sqcare leagues of land, and no more,” with boundaries as follows: “The river San Buena Ventura on the [125]east, the aguege or swamp on the west, and the Sierra Colorado on the north, provided that if the quantity contained within said boundaries be less than said quantity of two square leagues, then confirmation is hereby made of said less quantity.” After the survey had been completed statutory notice was given of it, and, in due course, it was regularly approved and adopted by the United States land department and was used in the patent which was subsequently issued, as a correct description of the land confirmed. The appellant, through mesne conveyances from the original patentees, became the owner of a part of the rancho described as bounded on the east by the San Buena Ventura river, and lying opposite the strip of land here in contest; and her contention is, that at the time of the survey the river ran to the east side of said strip of land, that consequently it was included in said rancho, and was conveyed to her by the conveyances aforesaid. The respondent contends that the river then ran to the west side of said strip, and that consequently it was not part of said rancho and does not belong to appellant.

The view of the case most favorable to appellant is that which rests the question wholly upon the memory of the various -witnesses who testified as to their recollections of the course of the river at the time of the survey. But under this view the testimony, to say the least of it, was so substantially conflicting as to put the finding of the court below, based on such testimony alone, beyond any disturbance here. The course of the river has, no doubt, changed considerably during the long period of time since the survey. There have been times when there was some water running on both sides of the land in contest (and it is sometimes called an island), and there was evidence that during recent years the water has run mostly on the east side; but there were numerous witnesses who testified that at the time of the survey the entire river was on the west side, and ran along'the extreme western bluff of the San Buena Ventura valley close by the mouth of the Canada del Diablo.

Taylor v. McConigle

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief