Borchard v. Eastwood

California Supreme Court Jul 24, 1901 No. L. A. No. 869Published

Before: Cooper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the land descriptions in the plaintiff's deeds were sufficient to identify the property despite minor errors or omissions, and that the defendant failed to prove the existence of an agreed boundary line or adverse possession.

Issues

Whether the land descriptions in the plaintiff's deeds were sufficient to identify the property.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a nonsuit.
Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding against the defendant's claim of an agreed boundary line.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The description was sufficient to identify and locate the land.”

“The number of the township in this deed may, therefore, be regarded as surplusage.”

“The evidence shows that one Edward F. Wright owned the land in dispute from 1882 up to December, 1898, the date of the conveyance to plaintiff.”

Synopsis

Deeds—Description.—Where, in a Deed, Land is Described as commencing at the Corner of certain sections “in the Chapman tract in the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana in the county of Orange,” the description is sufficient, though the township and range are not stated.

Deed—Description—Mistake.—Where, in a Deed, the Land is fully and correctly described, except the number of the township is given as “45” instead of “4,” and the land can be identified by the rest of the description, such mistake will not vitiate the conveyance.1

Deed—Description.—Where the Description in a Deed is all “the lands owned by the grantor” in a certain county, with certain exceptions, it is sufficient to convey all his lands in such county not included within the exceptions.

Boundary.—Statements of a Former Owner of Land, and his acts in putting in stakes on an alleged boundary line, are unavailing to establish the boundary, where the adjoining owner was not present, nor had any knowledge of such acts.

COOPER, C. Action to quiet title. Plaintiff recovered judgment and defendant appeals therefrom and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

The premises are described in the complaint as “lying and being in the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana, county of Orange, state of California, bounded and particularly described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point 15.825 [737]chains east from the corner of sections 28, 29, 32, and 33, township 4 S., R. 9 W., S. B. M.; thence north 16.93 chains; thence east 5.905 chains; thence south 16.93 chains; thence west 5,905 chains, to point of beginning—containing ten acres. The same being a portion of lots 13 and 14, block F, of the A. B. Chapman tract, as per map made by Frank Leeouvereur in December, 1870.” At the close of plaintiff's evidence the defendant made a motion for a nonsuit, which was denied, and it is claimed that the court erred in denying the motion. The argument is that the description contained in certain deeds offered in evidence by the plaintiff, marked Exhibits A, B, C, D and E, does not identify the land described in the complaint. The land is described in Exhibit A as “commencing at a stake 9.92 chains east from the corner of sections 28, 29, 32, and 33, which is the southwest corner of the east one-half of lot No. 13, block F, on the Chapman tract of the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana, and running thence north 16.93 chains 'to a ¡redwood post; thence east 16.81 chains to a redwood post; thence south 16.93 chains to iron pin 18 inches long; thence west 11.81 chains to the southwest corner, the place of beginning.” The same description is contained in Exhibits C and D. It is admitted that the description in the three deeds is the same, if the lands are in the same township and range as the land described in the complaint; but it is said that, as the deeds mention no township or range, they do not describe the same land. The description in the deeds was sufficient to identify the land without mentioning the township and range. We will not presume that there is another similar description of a tract of land in a different township and range commencing at the common corner to sections 28, 29, 32 and 33 in the Chapman tract in the Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana in the county of Orange. The description was sufficient to identify and locate the land. It has been held that, even if the deed describes the land as being in the southeast quarter, instead of the southwest quarter, of a named quarter section, the description is good if the land can be identified by monuments actually fixed upon the grounds: Helm v. Wilson, 76 Cal. 476, 8 Pac. 604. So it was held that, where a deed did not name the state, county or city in which the land was situated, the description was not void, because without it the property could still be located

Borchard v. Eastwood

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief