Crook v. Leinenweaver

This is an action to establish a boundary-line and to compel the removal of portions of certain structures on the land claimed by the plaintiffs.

In 1924, a tract of land owned by a bank was subdivided. The westerly portion of Lot 99 of that subdivision, which is now owned by the plaintiffs, was conveyed by a deed referring to the lot number and describing the part conveyed by metes and bounds. The part of Lot 99 thus conveyed was rectangular in shape but somewhat irregular in that its southerly line was some 20 feet longer than its northerly line, and its westerly line was about 100 feet longer than its easterly line. In 1926, the defendants acquired the easterly portion of Lot 99 by a deed conveying all of that lot except a portion described by metes and bounds, the latter being the same metes and bounds described in the prior deed.

The original survey of the property in 1924 was made by one Bradley, a licensed surveyor, who placed a stake in the northerly line of Lot 99 and one in the southerly line of that lot for the purpose of indicating the boundary line between these parcels. This line is referred to as the “Bradley line.’’ In 1946, the plaintiffs employed a licensed surveyor named Davidson, who fixed the easterly boundary of plaintiffs’ land by taking a point 2 feet easterly at the north and one 5.65 feet easterly at the south from the stakes set by Bradley 22 years before. This strip of land, 2 feet wide at the north and 5.65 feet wide at the south, is the area here in dispute.

The plaintiffs brought this action claiming that the Davidson line is the true boundary line, and alleging that the defendants have deprived them of the use of the disputed strip and have constructed portions of structures thereon which they refuse to move. The defendants answered claiming ownership of the disputed strip and asking that it be adjudged that the Bradley line is the true boundary line. The court made findings favorable to the defendants, but concluded that the facts found required a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and such a judgment was entered. The defendants moved to vacate the judgment under the provisions of sections 663 and 663a of the Code of Civil Procedure. An order denying that motion was entered, and the defendants have appealed from that order. The appeal is thus presented on the clerk’s transcript alone.

Contending that the conclusions of law are erroneous and not consistent with or supported by the findings of fact, the appellants argue that under the facts as found by the court

The doctrine of an agreed boundary line is well settled, and such agreements are favored by the courts. An actual argument or dispute is not necessary in such cases. The essential elements are an uncertainty as to the true position of the boundary and an agreement to accept a location as fixed by the parties. The fact of an agreement may be inferred from acts of the parties. Acquiescence and use of the property, while not controlling, may be considered under some circumstances for their evidentiary value. (Martin v. Lopes, 28 Cal.2d 618 [ 170 P.2d 881 ] ; Swartzhaugh v. Sargent, 30 Cal.App.2d 467 [ 86 P.2d 895 ]; Board of Trustees v. Miller, 54 Cal.App. 102 [ 201 P. 952 ]; Needham, v. Collamer, 94 Cal.App.2d 609 [ 211 P.2d 308 ].)

It was stipulated that each party paid taxes in accordance with the description in his deed. While the court found that the Davidson line was the true boundary line, it found the following facts: Prior to March 31, 1924, one Bradley, a licensed surveyor employed by the owner of Lot 99, placed two stakes approximately 655.71 feet apart, one in the northerly line and one in the southerly line of Lot 99, for the purpose of establishing the westerly boundary line of the property now owned by the defendants and the easterly boundary line of the property now owned by the plaintiffs. In March, 1926, the defendants were shown these stakes by an agent of the owner of Lot 99, and entered into a contract to purchase the easterly portion of this lot as above described. They took possession on April 1, 1926, and occupied all of the eastern portion of Lot 99 as far west as the Bradley line.

From these findings of fact the court found as conclusions of law (a) “That although all the equities in this matter lie with the defendants herein equity is not a factor to be considered in a boundary line dispute”; (b) “That pursuant to the findings of the fact hereinabove set forth it does not

After referring to the one fact as found, that there was no dispute, the court concluded that there was no sufficient agreement within the meaning of the agreed boundary doctrine. Such a conclusion was erroneous since the matter of a dispute or argument was a false quantity. The facts found disclose both an uncertainty as to the location of the line and an agreement, within the meaning and requirement of that doctrine. The fact that these parties in October, 1941, established the line between the Bradley stakes upon the ground, with a desire to definitely establish that line, shows that some uncertainty existed with respect to how the boundary line ran, which they desired to settle. Otherwise, it would have served no purpose to take such definite steps and work together to actually establish such a line upon the ground. Having thus worked together for this purpose, and having thus established that line on the ground, the parties then planted trees and constructed a fence along portions of the line they had located, in a manner which clearly marked that . line. They then accepted and acted upon that line for five years, and until sometime after a new survey was made. These positive steps go far beyond a mere acquiescence, and disclose an agreement within the meaning of the doctrine in question. This is not only a reasonable inference from the facts as found by the court, but is the only inference reasonably to be drawn therefrom. It would be unreasonable to suppose that the actions of these parties in thus locating and establishing this line on the ground in October, 1941, were merely idle acts which had no relation to fixing the boundary line or to reaching an agreement in that connection. The conclusions drawn by the trial court are inconsistent with the facts found, and are not supported by those facts. Not only was there a most suggestive acquiescence from 1926 to 1941, with a permitted use in reliance on the original survey, but positive action was taken in 1941 which removed an existing uncertainty, and which established an agreed boundary under the principles set forth in the cases cited, and in many other eases. The court recognized the equities of the situation, but erroneously applied conclusions of law which are inconsistent with the facts as found.

Griffin, J., and Mussell, J., concurred.