Hellman v. City of Los Angeles
Before: Gray
Synopsis
Action to Quiet Title—Boundary of Street—Oross-Oomplaint of City—Uncertainty.—In an action against a city to quiet title to a lot of land involving the boundary of a street, a cross-complaint by the city against the plaintiff and other defendants brought in as parties to quiet the title of the city to the street, which is alleged to have been encroached upon by their improvements, but which does not locate the boundaries of the street, nor show to what extent their improvements have encroached upon it, is demurrable for uncertainty in those particulars.
Id—Evidence—Location of Boundary—Loss of Monuments—Conformity of Street Improvements to Lot Improvements.— Where it appeared in evidence that all of the monuments of the official survey of a street were lost, and the question of fact upon which the rights of appellants depended related to the location of the south boundary of the street, evidence that all of the improvements on such boundary conformed to the line of appellant’s improvements on a corner lot derived by deed from the city, and which had occupied that line for twenty-five years, and that during that period the sidewalk and street improvements were all made to conform to that line, is competent evidence to show the location of such boundary.
Id—Incompetent Evidence of Engineers — Inaccurate Survey. Where it appears that the official survey of the street in controversy was inaccurate, and there was no proof as to the lines originally established by it, other than the line of improvements of the lots and sidewalks thereupon, the evidence and maps of engineers not based upon the official survey, but upon the assumed correctness of the line of improvements of another street, and upon the supposition of a uniform width of the streets, and involving the alteration of the length of lots shown by the official map, and constituting mere guesswork as to the location of the lines of the official survey of the street in question, is incompetent and inadmissible.
Id.—Inaccuracy of Early Surveys—Common Knowledge—Judicial Notice.—The inaccuracy of the early surveys in this and other states is a matter of common knowledge of which the courts may take judicial notice.
GRAY, C. This action was commenced by the plaintiff against the city of Los Angeles to quiet title to a certain lot of land at the northeast corner of Spring and Fourth streets in the said city. The city filed a cross-complaint alleging that the appellant, Roaz Duncan, and other parties, all of whom were subsequently brought in and made parties to the action, owned lots along and fronting on Fourth street, on both sides thereof, between Spring and Main streets, and that all these lotowners, including the plaintiff, had “so encroached upon Fourth street, both upon the north and upon the south, that the width of said Fourth street, as it now exists upon the ground between the fences and other improvements of said parties, is considerable less than sixty feet.” The cross-complaint also sets forth that in 1849 a survey and map of said city was made, known as Ord’s survey, which was adopted as the official map of said city, and which shows Fourth street to have a uniform width of sixty feet. The principal relief prayed for in the cross-complaint is that the lines of Fourth' street be determined, and that the claims adverse to the use of Fourth street as a public street of said city be forever quieted. The appellant demurred to this cross-complaint for insufficiency of facts to constitute a cause of action, and for uncertainty because the north and south boundaries of Fourth street were not set out and it could not be ascertained therefrom to what extent the improvements of the several parties, including appellant, encroached upon said street. In overruling this demurrer the court erred. The complaint was uncertain in the particulars specified in the demurrer. Whether the suit be treated as an action to quiet title or to establish the boundaries of Fourth street, the appellant was entitled. to be informed by the cross-complaint specifically as to [386]what portion of the premises occupied by him were claimed to be an encroachment and within the boundaries of Fourth street.
We are also of opinion that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision of the court. So far as the appellants’ rights were concerned, the question of fact to be decided was as to tire exact location of the south boundary of Fourth street, at the place where appellants’ property was located, according to Ord’s survey, which is conceded to be the original and official survey of the city of Los Angeles. Appellants introduced evidence tending to show that those under whom they claim title acquired the same by deed from the city of Los Angeles November 21, 1855, and that appellants’ predecessors in interest erected a picket fence along Fourth street, on the line now occupied by the northerly line of appellants’ building on the southeast corner of Spring and Fourth streets; that said fence was moved in the year 1888, when said building was erected; that said Fourth street was paved and the sidewalk built to the line occupied by said building, and the owners of said property paid their proportion of said assessment for said paving up to said line; that up to 1897 all the improvements on the south side of Fourth street, between Spring and Main, were on a line occupied by defendants’ building and had occupied that line for at least twenty-five years prior thereto. This was the best evidence introduced and the only competent evidence offered to show the location of the south line of Fourth street.
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)