Oaks v. Renshaw

THOMPSON, J. The defendants, Leonard and Della Renshaw, husband and wife, have appealed from a judgment quieting title to forty acres of farm land in Shasta County. The appellants hold a contract to purchase from Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation the forty-acre tract adjoining plaintiffs’ land on the east. The chief issue is the proper location of the boundary line between the parties. The answer admitted that plaintiffs own “the SW % of the SE % of Section 32” described in the complaint, but defendants contended that the description by metes and bounds of that sixteenth portion of the section which is added to the description is incorrect. The appellants contend that their western boundary line is substantially 200 feet west of plaintiffs’ eastern line as it appears in the description by metes and bounds. The controversy was over the 200-foot strip of land along plaintiffs’ eastern boundary. The findings determined that plaintiffs own the entire forty-acre tract described in the complaint. The judgment quiets title in plaintiffs to that tract of land. Judgment by default was entered against the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation. That company has not appealed.

The appellants concede in their opening brief “that the government line is that which is described in respondents’ complaint, because the evidence as to the location thereof was conflicting.” But they contend that the findings and judg[146]ment are erroneous for failure to determine whether defendants’ asserted western boundary line is not the true line since they, “without objection . . . introduced evidence of the agreed boundary, and that evidence stands undisputed in the record. ’ ’

The complaint is couched in two counts. The second cause of action is for ejectment. The first count seeks to quiet title in plaintiffs to forty acres of land in Shasta County described as follows:

“The SW14 of SE% of Section 32, Township 31 N., R. 5 W., M. D.B.&M., and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the south quarter corner of section 32, Township 31 N. , R. 5 W., M.D.B.&M., said point being marked by a stone monument, and running thence N. Io 37' 27" E. on and along the midsection line 1362.16 feet; thence S. 89° 42' 40" E. 1322.28 feet, thence S. 3° 03' 23" W. 1366.50 feet, thence N. 89° 35' 29" W. on and along the section line 1287.97 feet to the point of beginning. ’ ’

The answer specifically admits that plaintiffs own the “SW % of the SE14 of Section 32,” but denies the correctness of the metes and bounds description added thereto. The answer makes no reference to a claim of title by acquiescence or agreement to the 200-foot strip of land. A11 amendment to the answer alleges that appellants own that 200-foot strip of land and describes it by metes and bounds, but fails to allege that it was acquired by agreement of the parties. The amendment prays that title thereto be quieted in appellants. It was stipulated that said amendment may be deemed to have been controverted.