Alpine County v. Tuolumne County

• Decision Date: 07 March 1958
• Citation: 322 P.2d 449,49 Cal.2d 787
• Parties: COUNTY of ALPINE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY of TUOLUMNE, County of Calaveras, and County of Amador, Defendants and Respondents. Sac. 6654.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 449

322 P.2d 449

49 Cal.2d 787

COUNTY of ALPINE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY of TUOLUMNE, County of Calaveras, and County of Amador, Defendants and Respondents.

Sac. 6654.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

March 7, 1958.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1958.

Ward H. Coffill, Oakdale, and Jeremy C. Cook, Turlock, for appellant.

James H. Phillips, Sacramento, amicus curiae on behalf of appellant.

Ross A. Carkeet, Special Counsel, Hardin & Gorgas, James R. Hardin, Sonora, Joseph S. Huberty, Dist. Atty., San Andreas, and Anthony A. Caminetti, Jr., Dist. Atty., Jackson, for respondents.

SCHAUER, Justice.

Plaintiff Alpine County appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered pursuant to an order sustaining defendant counties' demurrers to the amended complaint without leave to amend. By its complaint Alpine seeks a judicial determination of the boundary between it and defendant counties, and to restrain those counties from exercising jurisdiction over certain territory alleged to be situated within the boundaries of Alpine. Each of the defendants demurred on the grounds that the complaint does not state a cause of action, that the court has no jurisdiction of the persons of the defendants or of the subject of the action, and that there is another action pending between the parties for the same causes alleged in the complaint. We have concluded that the complaint states a cause of action for judicial interpretation of an unclear boundary line statute, that the court has jurisdiction over the matter, that the complaint does not show that any other action is pending between the parties on a similar cause, and that the judgment of dismissal should therefore be reversed.

The boundaries of Alpine County are defined in section 23102 of the Government Code as follows: 'Beginning at the north corner, at a point where the state line crosses the east summit of the Sierra Nevada Mountains * * *; thence southwesterly along said summit to a point two miles west of James Green's house, in Hope Valley, called Thompson's Peak; thence southwesterly in a direct line to a point on the Amador and Nevada turnpike road in front of Z. Kirkwood's house * * *; thence south across the north fook of the Mokelumne River to the road leading from West Point, in Calaveras, to Big Tree road, near the Big Meadows; thence easterly along said West Point road to the Big Tree road; thence easterly in a direct line to where the Sonora trail strikes the middle fork of the Stanislaus River; thence easterly along said trail to the summit of the Sierra Nevada Mountains; thence northerly along said summit to the dividing ridge between the West Walker and Carson Rivers; thence northeasterly along said dividing ridge to the state line * * *; thence northwest along said state line to the place of beginning.'

By resolutions dated June 16, 1950, and July 21, 1950, the Board of Supervisors of Alpine County petitioned the State Lands Commission to investigate and survey the problem of a disputed boundary common to Alpine and Tuolumne Counties, and by resolution dated July 6, 1953, the same board made the same request with respect to Alpine's common boundaries with Amador and Calaveras Counties. The only source of authority of the State Lands Commission to act in a matter of this type is section 23171 of the Government Code read together with section 6204 of the Public Resources Code. Section 23171 provides that 'All common boundaries and common corners of counties not adequately marked by natural objects or lines, or by surveys lawfully made, shall be definitely established by surveys made jointly by the surveyors of all the counties affected, and approved by the boards of supervisors of the counties, or by a survey made by the State Lands Commission, on application of the board of supervisors of any county affected.' Section 6204 of the Public Resources Code states that 'The (state lands) commission shall when required, survey and mark the boundary lines of counties and cities.'

According to the subject pleading, the dispute as to the boundaries here involved arose from two sources: (1) uncertainty as to the terminal point of the line running south from Z. Kirkwood's house 'to the road leading from West Point, in Calaveras, to Big Tree road, near the Big Meadows'; and (2) uncertainty as to the location of 'the Sonora trail,' as those terms are used in the statutory boundary description of Alpine.

Pursuant to the above mentioned requests of Alpine's Board of Supervisors, the State Lands Commission undertook investigations and conducted hearings in an effort to determine the true boundary line. Subsequently, certain findings adverse to the position of Alpine were approved by the commission. Alpine then instituted the present action, and the commission suspended its proceedings pending the outcome of this litigation.

In its complaint Alpine alleges that 'there is, and for many years last past has been, dispute and disagreement and uncertainty existing between' Alpine and Amador, Calaveras, the Tuolumne Counties due to the above mentioned uncertainties in statutory boundary descriptions; that the exact location of the boundary lines in question 'is in dispute and has never been actually or judicially determined'; that no survey marking the lines at the disputed points 'can be made until the (uncertainties in location are) judicially determined'; that defendant counties have been encroaching in certain specified respects on the jurisdiction of Alpine County, over the protest of Alpine, on certain portions of Alpine lying to the east and north of the true boundary line; and that Alpine 'has no adequate remedy at law or by administrative process.' Alpine prays for a judicial determination of the western and southern boundary lines of the county, and for a decree enjoining defendant counties from asserting jurisdiction over the land areas lying east and north of the court-determined line and from receiving or using funds from the United States Forest Service based on acreage of national forest lands within the disputed areas. As noted earlier, demurrers of Amador, Calaveras, and Tuolumne Counties to this complaint were sustained without leave to amend, and Alpine appeals from the judgment of dismissal thereafter entered.

The crucial question presented is whether the courts have any jurisdiction over the controversy in its present state, or whether Alpine is precluded from judicial relief until the administrative agency (the State Lands Commission) has finally determined the issues tendered to it. We have concluded, for reasons hereinafter stated, that primary jurisdiction in this case rests in the courts, and that the courts are not required to delay their proceedings until the commission has concluded its hearings.

Defendant counties contend that under the above quoted provisions of section 23171 of the Government Code and section 6204 of the Public Resources Code, the State Lands Commission is granted the power to settle boundary disputes by surveying and marking the true boundary line, and therefore Alpine cannot seek judicial relief until the administrative proceedings requested by Alpine are concluded. It is true that in sections 23171-23175 of the Government Code the law provides a special remedy for the determination by survey of inadequately marked boundary lines. Such a survey, when properly made and finally approved, is conclusive of the subject lines and corners. (Gov.Code, § 23175; People ex rel. Borrell v. Boggs (1880), 56 Cal. 648.)

However, it is to be noted that sections 23171-23175 are located in Government Code, title 3, division 1, dealing with 'Counties Generally.' Article 2 of chapter 2 of that division defines the boundaries of the several counties and is followed by article 3 which relates to 'Settlement of Boundary Disputes.' Section 23171 is found in article 3 and, as hereinabove mentioned, provides that 'All common boundaries and common corners of counties not adequately marked by natural objects or lines * * * shall be definitely established by surveys * * *' and section 23173, also in article 3, declares that 'Upon the reports made by the county surveyors the State Lands Commission shall finally determine and establish the common boundaries and corners, if it can collate a satisfactory description therefrom. If the reports are insufficient for the purpose, it shall cause surveys to be made, and when approved by it, the surveys establish the common boundaries and corners.' It is manifest that the language of the sections above quoted relates to the 'determination' of disputed boundary lines only through the making of surveys to mark the boundary lines defined by the Legislature in article 2, not to define those lines by interpreting legislative language which leaves uncertain the point where the survey shall start or the courses it must follow.

In respect to disputes of the latter character (i. e., those which involve not merely running a survey to mark legally defined lines but, rather conducting a proceeding to legally define the lines so that thereafter they can be marked on making a survey) it is clear from the language above quoted, read in the context of related provisions, that the legislative plan contemplates resolution by judicial proceedings. In this connection, it is noted that section 23178 of article 3 provides that 'Whenever a common boundary * * * has been legally established in accordance with Article 3 of this chapter, or by judicial proceedings,' etc. Furthermore, we find that in title 5, division 1, chapter 5, of the same code, dealing specifically with 'Boundaries' and proceedings to establish them, section 51000 provides that 'When the location of a boundary line of a local agency ¹ is indefinite or uncertain, or the boundary line has been obliterated from any cause, it may be determined, defined, and established pursuant to this chapter.' Section 51001 declares that 'The legislative body...