Needham v. Collamer
| Citation | 94 Cal.App.2d 609,211 P.2d 308 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 14 November 1949 |
| Parties | NEEDHAM et ux. v. COLLAMER et ux. Civ. 7630. |
J. H. Brill, San Francisco, for appellant.
Lovett K. Fraser, Lakeport, for respondent.
The defendants appeal from a judgment entered in an action instituted by plaintiffs to quiet their title to certain property located in Lake County. Plaintiffs and defendants are the owners of adjoining lots and the controversy concerns the location of the boundary line between their respective properties.
By a deed dated February 8, 1945, J. Dan Moy and Evalene Moy conveyed to plaintiffs Lot 24 of a subdivision known as 'Restricted Park Tract Subdivision of Lot 12, Clear Lake Acres', and on May 4, 1945 the same grantors conveyed to the defendants an adjoining lot designated as Lot 25 in the same division. The foregoing deeds described the property thereby conveyed by reference to the official map of the subdivision recorded in 1923.
The court found that the Moys were the owners of Lots 24 and 25 prior to the execution of the aforementioned deeds; that the westerly boundary of Lot 24 is coincident with the easterly boundary of lot 25; that at the time of the conveyance of lot 24 to the plaintiffs Mr. Moy indicated the boundary line to the plaintiffs as running from an iron stake driven in the ground at the northwest corner of lot 24 in a southerly direction to a double tree on the lakeshore and on into Clear Lake for a distance of 352 feet and that said line passed 30 inches west of the westerly wall of the garage located on lot 24. The court further found that plaintiffs, after the execution of the deed conveying lot 24 to them, occupied said lot 24 up to the line so indicated by Moy and have so occupied said lot ever since; that Moy occupied lot 25 up to the line so indicated and agreed upon; that the defendants, after the conveyance to them of said lot 25 by the Moys, occupied the same up to the boundary line so designated and agreed upon between Moy and the plaintiffs as the boundary line; and that plaintiffs put in a pipe line along the west line of their lot without objection by the Moys or the defendants as to its location.
A surveyor who, at the request of defendants, re-surveyed lot 25 in July 1945, placed the northeast corner of lot 25 approximately 2 1/2 feet to the east from the iron stake found by the court to be the northwest corner of lot 24. The effect of the boundary line as established by said survey was to place part of the garage now located on lot 24 on to lot 25, whereas, as above stated, the boundary line as indicated by Moy and agreed upon with plaintiffs passed 30 inches to the west of the garage.
The defendants do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the foregoing findings, their contention being that such findings do not sustain the judgment as a matter of law, i. e., that before a disputed boundary can be fixed by agreement it must be acquiesced in for a period equal to the statute of limitations which admittedly is not the situation herein.
While it is true as a general rule that the period of acquiescence in the agreed boundary must be equal to the period of the statute of limitations, Silva...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paurley v. Harris
...P.2d 512. Draper v. Griffin, 61 Cal.App.2d 281, 142 P.2d 772; Willie v. Local Realty Co., 110 Utah 523, 175 P.2d 718; Needham v. Collamer, 94 Cal.App.2d 609, 211 P.2d 308; Dragos v. Russell, Utah, 237 P.2d 831; Martin v. Lopes, Cal.App., 164 P.2d 321; Id., 28 Cal.2d 618, 170 P.2d 881. Here ......
-
Kirkegaard v. McLain
...called for by the respective descriptions. Howatt v. Humboldt Milling Co., 61 Cal.App. 333, 214 P. 1009.' (Needham v. Collamer, supra, 94 Cal.App.2d 609, 611-612, 211 P.2d 308, 309.) If the evidence supports the finding that there was an agreed boundary and that there was an uncertainty in ......
-
Janes v. LeDeit
...to them, and that can be made clear to others.' (Carr v. Schomberg, 104 Cal.App.2d 850, 859, 232 P.2d 597, 602; see Needham v. Collamer, 94 Cal.App.2d 609, 612, 211 P.2d 308; Rose v. Silva, supra, 189 Cal.App.2d p. 767, 11 Cal.Rptr. 492.) The primary question is one of fact going to the que......
-
Steele v. Shuler
...parties, it is binding upon all parties to the agreement and their successors in interest.' (8 Cal.Jur.2d 766, 777; Needham v. Collamer, 94 Cal.App.2d 609, 211 P.2d 308.) But this rule must be applied and considered in connection with another rule that a bona fide purchaser for value and wi......