Tognazzini v. Morganti

THORNTON, J. Ejectment for a parcel of land in Santa Barbara county. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, which was denied, and from this order of denial plaintiff appeals. The controversy herein is as to the location of the eastern patented line of the Casmalia rancho. The parcel litigated is triangular in shape. The base of the [236]triangle is a portion of the southern patented line of the rancho. The plaintiff contends that the eastern line of this triangle is the true patented line. The defendants’ contention is that a line farther west is the line as patented. The length of the base line is twenty and twenty-hundredths chains. The other lines start from the ends of the base line, and converge in a northwesterly course until they meet. Of these converging lines, the westerly line is and will be called the “Harris Line,” and the eastern is and will be called the “Cooper Line.” The plaintiff contends for the Cooper line; the defendants for the Harris line. The court decided in favor of the Harris line, and thus upheld the contention of defendants. This eastern line of the Casmalia is thus described in the patent: It commences at a post which designates a station, and is marked “C No. 2”; “thence descending ridge south, fifty degrees east, eighty-eight chains and fifty links, enter Canada; thence down through some one hundred and fifty-five chains, leaving Canada bearing southeast; thence over low running hills three hundred and ninety-four chains and fifty links; leaves hills, and crosses road, course southwest and northeast, three hundred and ninety-five chains and fifty-five links, to old post in the entrance of the Canada Verde, marked ‘T. S. No. 5 and C No. 3.’ ”

There is one very controlling call in the field-notes of the patent, and that is the road which the eastern line is described as crossing. The testimony shows this road, or the remains of an old road about where it is designated, near the entrance of the Canada Verde. There is testimony that a surveyor’s post was erected at this point corresponding with the course and distance of the field-notes. That course is south, 50 east, and the distance 395 chains 55 links from post marked “C No. 2.” We are of the opinion that the Cooper line is the true line, or near the true line, of the patent. There is evidence that there was no post found at what plaintiff contends is the true location of post C No. 3. If this post cannot be found, the question would then be very simple. The line must be run according to course and distance, and fixing the comer C No. 3, at the south end of that line, taking care; however, that the line so run shall cross the road called for.