Adair v. White

HARRISON, J. Ejectment for certain lands claimed to be a part of the Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy, in Ventura county. The controlling question in the case is the location of the southerly line of the rancho. This line is set forth in the patent as follows: After leaving station S. P. 13, “thence S. 42, ]4 E., at 30 links enters bed of Santa Clara river, course S. W.; at 4 chains, intersects offset of township line in township 3 N., range 21 W., 39.50 chains east of corner to sections 10, 11, 14, and 15; at four chains and fifty links crosses river, and ascends; thence, along westerly slope of abrupt hills called ‘Lomas de Santa Paula,’ 492 chains, to stake marked ‘S. P. 14’ station, at the most southern point of above-named hills, known as the ‘Punta de la Loma.’ ” When the case was here upon the former appeal (Adair v. White, 85 Cal. 316, 24 Pac. 663) it was said: “It will be observed that this line terminates at the most southern point of the hills called the ‘Lomas de Santa Paula,’ which point is known as the ‘Punta [262]de la Loma. ’ This is the natural object or monument, and the station S. P. 14 was there fixed and established by the calls of the patent. If this point can he found, it is only necessary to run a line from S. P. 13 to S. P. 14 to fix the southern boundary”; and the case was remanded for a new trial in accordance with this principle. When the cause came on again for trial in the court below, the- greater portion of the testimony was directed to establishing the location of the point upon the Punta de la Loma at which S. P. 14 had been placed, and from the evidence before it the court found that this point was so located that a line drawn from it to S. P. 13 lay to the north of the lands occupied by the defendants, and thereupon rendered judgment in their favor. The position of station S. P. 14, as well as the significance of “Punta de la Loma,” were questions of fact to be determined by the court from the evidence before it. There was a sharp conflict of evidence upon both of these questions, and, under the well-established rule, the finding of the trial court thereon must be held conclusive. It is only where there is no substantial evidence in support of a finding that this court can disregard the finding of the trial court; and after a careful examination of the record herein we are unable to say that the evidence before that court did not authorize it to make the findings which it has made upon both of these questions of fact. The stake that had been placed at the station had disappeared, and one of the objects at the trial was to re-establish this monument. Several surveyors were called as witnesses for the respective parties for the purpose of establishing the location of S. P. 14, and the conflict between their testimony arises chiefly from the construction given to the field-notes and calls of the patent; the plaintiff contending that these notes call for the southernmost point of the Punta, or extremity of the hills, while the defendants contend that the Punta is itself designated as the southern extremity of the Lomas, or hills, and that the question to be determined was the position on the Punta at which the station S. P. 14 was originally placed. In his field-notes of the survey, which were finally approved for the issuance of the patent, the surveyor describes the course from S. P. 13 as running in a direct line ‘ ‘ along western slope of abrupt hills called ‘Lomas de Santa Paula,’ 492 chains, and to the most southern point of above-named hills known as the ‘Punta