California Mortgage & Savings Bank v. Hampton

California Supreme Court Jul 11, 1899 No. L. A. No. 567Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed a judgment quieting title in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the long-standing fence line and the parties' subsequent conduct established the property boundaries, and that the defendants failed to plead or prove a right to an easement for water diversion beyond their riparian rights.

Issues

Whether the trial court correctly determined the property boundaries based on historical fence lines and the conduct of the parties.
Whether the judgment improperly restricted the defendants' riparian water rights or failed to grant an easement for a dam.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Defendants could not have any greater relief than they claimed, and they made no claim as appropriators; indeed, the answer prays for no relief whatever.”

“We do not understand this to interfere with defendants’ rights as riparian proprietors.”

Synopsis

Deeds—Construction by Acts of Parties.—Defendant Conveyed Part of a tract of land, and a fence was constructed by him and a subsequent grantee so as to include the land described in the conveyance and an additional piece belonging to him, and the land was subsequently conveyed to plaintiff by a description following the line of the fence. Defendant claimed that after the fence was constructed he discovered that it included too much land, and so notified the owner, but took no steps to have it moved, and allowed it to remain for twenty years, and in conveying an adjoining piece had it surveyed, and used a description corresponding to the line of the fence. Held, in an action to quiet title to the additional piece on the ground that it should have been included in the original conveyance by defendant, that the subsequent acts of the parties had established plaintiff’s title.

Quieting Title—Judgment.—Where, for Twenty-three Years Previous to an action to quiet title, defendant had maintained a dam across a stream at a point where it intersected the line between his land and the land in controversy, thereby backing the water over a part of the land involved so as to divert it into his ditch, and in the action, while alleging title to the land, he fails to allege a right to flow it, merely alleging riparian rights in the stream, he cannot complain that the judgment declaring that he had no interest in the land, but allowing him to maintain the dam, does not also give him the right to divert the water, and flow plaintiff’s land.

CHIPMAN, C. Action to quiet title. Plaintiff had judgment, from which, and from an order denying motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.

It appears that in 1876 defendants were the owners of the south one-half of the southeast one-quarter of section 22, township 30 south, range 12 east, situated in San Luis Obispo [302]county. They in that year conveyed to one Andrews, by metes and bounds, a portion of said land by the description given in the answer, to which defendants disclaim ownership. In 1877 Andrews conveyed this piece of land by the same description to one Breed and he, in 1887, conveyed the land by the same description to one Dutton, and he, in 1897, by the same description, conveyed it to plaintiff, and ten days thereafter conveyed by quitclaim to plaintiff by the description given in the complaint. This latter description coincides exactly with the tract as it was fenced by Breed, a part of which fence was built by defendants, and which remains to-day the same as when built in 1877. The fenced tract is known as the “Dutton Place.” A map attached to the original transcript shows this description by a black line, which follows around the tract as the fence is built; and by a dotted line the land described in the answer is shown when run according to the courses and distances, but disregarding the calls or stations. The map also shows a piece of land formerly owned by defendants, part of the original tract, lying east of the Dutton place, which defendants conveyed to one Preston in 1894. This deed is in evidence, and its calls, so far as they describe the line dividing the Dutton place from defendants’ land sold to Preston, coincide with the line of fence built in 1877, and it is in evidence that Hampton" assisted in making this Preston survey; and the surveyor, Story, testified that he had no recollection that Hampton told him that he owned any land within the Dutton fence. Dutton testified that he had been in possession of the tract as fenced since 1882 and bought it in 1887, and that no one but himself ever claimed to own it since that time; and he did not admit ownership in anybody else at any time. Hampton testified that he told Breed that he (Breed) had some of his (Hampton’s) land inclosed, and he also testified that he so told Dutton, but this latter statement is disputed by Dutton. Hampton also testified that the fence is now where it was built originally in 1887; that he built about twelve or thirteen chains of the line, commencing on the south side of his land, and Breed built the balance, and that the fence inclosed about three-quarters of an acre too much, because Breed commenced building the line on the second course two chains farther south than it should be; that he found this out by measuring the first line with a tape soon after the fence was built, and that he told Breed of it at the

California Mortgage & Savings Bank v. Hampton

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief