Cragin v. Powell

• Decision Date: 17 December 1888
• Citation: 9 S.Ct. 203,32 L.Ed. 566,128 U.S. 691
• Parties: CRAGIN v. POWELL et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

128 U.S. 691

9 S.Ct. 203

32 L.Ed. 566

CRAGIN v. POWELL et al.

December 17, 1888.

J. D. Rouse and Wm. Grant, for appellant.

J. S. Whitaker, for appellees.

LAMAR, J.

The appellees, Christian L. Powell, Joseph O. Ayo, and Ludger Gaidry, on the 1st of November, 1880, brought an action of boundary, in the state court, against the appellant, George D. Cragin, praying for a judgment of the court to fix the boundaries between certain lands, the property of appellees, and the contiguous lands belonging to appellant, and that he be ordered to deliver to appellees possession of the lands claimed and set forth in their petition. On the 12th of July, 1880, the cause was removed into the circuit court of the United States, on the ground of diverse citizenship. The answer of appellant sets up that he and his grantors, who had acquired the lands from original patentees, had been in public, peaceable, and continuous possession of the lands included in his deed by well-defined boundaries for more than 30 years, and without notice of the claims of any person whatsoever; and that it is unnecessary to fix or establish any boundaries as prayed in the petition. On the 2d of May, 1881, on motion of counsel for appellees, the court appointed a surveyor for the purpose of ascertaining and fixing the boundary lines between the properties of the respective parties litigant, and ordered him to report his proceedings within reasonable time. By mutual consent of parties, Benjamin McLeran was selected by the court as such surveyor. On June 6, 1881, McLeran filed his report of the survey made by him, and its results. From this report it appears that the township and sections in which the lands of the parties are located were officially surveyed in 1837 by one G. W. Connelly as part of the public domain, and that the plat of such survey was filed in the United States land-office of the district; that he considered this survey of Connelly so incorrect, and the traces of its lines and corners so difficult to identify, that he was unable to locate any proper line between the lands in question, except upon the basis of a resurvey of the entire township, in accordance with certain corrective resurveys of adjoining townships, which had been made in 1850 and succeeding years by one Joseph Gorlinski, a deputy United States surveyor. In this view, and guided by the theory of these corrective surveys, McLeran proceeded to run a line which he considered the proper boundary between the lands in question, and recommended its adoption to the court 'as substantially such a line as would have been run had the whole township been resurveyed at the time when Deputy-Surveyor Gorlinski was resurveying the adjoining townships.' With this report he filed two maps,—No. 1, a map of his own survey; and No. 2, a map designed to exhibit the discrepancies between the Connelly survey and the survey of Joseph Gorlinski and that of McLeran himself. These discrepancies are: (1) By the Gorlinski and the McLeran surveys the township lacked half a mile of being six miles square; the estern tier of sections thereof losing fully one-half of the area given by them in the official plat, which official survey establishes a full township as prescribed by law. (2) By Connelly's plat 'a bayou, known as Bayou Four Points,' is located on appellant's lands, while by McLeran's map that bayou is located on the lands of appellees. In his supplemental report McLeran says 'it appears that Bayou Four Points was erroneously reported by the original survey.' The report also says: 'The ridges on either side of the bavous are composed of a rich, black, loamy soil, * * * and when put under cultivation become the best sugar-producing lands in the south. The far greater portion of the township consists of a marsh, * * * worthless for cultivation.' The line recommended by McLeran places the lands of the appellees where those of the appellant are located by the official survey, and thus gives to the former the rich ridges along the bayous now in the possession of the latter.

The appellant was required to show cause by the 19th of November, 1881, why the report of McLeran should not be approved and homologated as being a true and correct survey in the premises. Thereupon the court, upon motion of the appellant, and against the opposition of the appellees, ordered that the cause be placed on the equity docket, and proceed as in equity. Opposition to the report was afterwards duly filed, alleging that if approved the appellant would be deprived of lands to which he held title through mesne conveyances from United States patents, and of which he and his grantors had held possession for 30 years and upwards. An amended answer by appellant and replication by appellees having been filed, the cause was put at issue. The court, upon the pleadings and evidence, confirmed the report of the surveyor, and rendered a decree fixing the boundary line between the two estates according to the prayer of the original petition.

The primary object of the action of boundary, under the Civil Code of Louisiana, is to determine and fix the boundary between contiguous estates of the respective proprietors. The provision of the Code in article 845, and other provisions under title 5 of the Code, that the limits must be fixed according to the titles of the parties, are held by the supreme court of Louisiana to apply to cases in which neither party disputes he title of his antagonist. Sprigg v. Hooper, 9 Rob. (La.) 253; Zeringue v. Harang, 17 La. 349; Blanc v. Cousin, 8 La. Ann. 71. The title to the property is not allowed to be litigated in this action, whose purpose is to fix a line or boundary between adjoining claims. When, therefore, in the course of the proceedings in this case, the surveyor appointed to survey and fix a boundary between the respective properties of the parties made a report, alleging mistakes in the official survey, and recommending a line, the effect of which, if adopted, would eject the appellee from the lands held by him under a claim of valid title, the court below ordered the case to be placed upon the equity side of the docket, thus bringing, it was supposed, within its equitable cognizance the essential rights of the parties, unaffected by the special limitations governing the action of boundary.

To determine the grounds upon which this court is asked to reverse the decree of the court below it is necessary to advert in some detail to the facts as shown by the record. In 1844, the United States issued to one Bach patents to certain portions of sections 10, 15, and 22 of township 20 S., range 17 E., in the south-east district west of the river, according to the official plat of the survey of said lands returned to the general land-office of the United States by the surveyor general.

The appellant is the owner of the lands thus patented to Bach; and for many years he and those under whom he claims have been in possession of the lands, which, according to the official survey, were embraced in said patents. In April, 1878, one Samuel Wolf purchased from the state of Louisiana portions of the same sections 10, 15, and 22, and also portions of sections 14 and 23 of the same township, all adjoining the lands of the appellant. These lands last described were given to the state as swamp lands, under the act of the 20th of March, 1849, and were noted as such on the official plat referred to above. In 1879 Wolf sold this property to Powell, one of the appellees, who in May, 1880, sold an undivided half to the other two appellees, and in the same year they brought this action of boundary.

In support of the decree of the court below it is urged by counsel for appellees that 'there is nothing in the patents or title on record to show, by word or otherwise, any distinct calls designating their location; nothing given descriptive of the property, except the township, the section, and the range; nothing to describe the lands pastented or conveyed, either as high lands, swamp or overflowed lands, or as having upon them any water-course or bayou.' He admits, however, that the plat in evidence contains upon its face the names of certain bayous, as 'Bayou Cailliou,' 'Grassy,' 'Sale,' and others; but says 'that the original patents and conveyances, apart from the plat, are silent upon the subject, except that the defendant's title calls for land on Bayou Grand Cailliou.'

In this view, which seems to be the one on which the court below must have acted, the learned counsel is mistaken. It is a well-settled principle that when lands are granted according to an official plat of the survey of such lands, the plat itself, with all its notes, lines, descriptions, and land-marks, becomes as much a part of...