-
This is funny…from old case…
Powell v. Allen, 155 Cal. 161 (1909)
This is the boundary between two lots on the north side of East 6th Street, east of Euclid Avenue in Los Angeles. The lots are 24 and 25 of Hammell’s Subdivision, M.R. 18-6:
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/misc/MR018/MR018-006.pdfThe opinion notes if you add up the lots along the north line of Willie Street (East 6th Street) the total is 892′. The corner of Willie and Euclid/Willie is well established and the southeast corner of the subdivision is Hancock’s stake which lines up with the fences and trees going north. The problem is the corner to stake is 884′ which is 8′ short.
The owner of 25 wants to measure from the west (of course) and the owner of 24 wants to measure from the east. There is no talk of proportioning, just which way do we measure. The court agrees with Lot 25 and measures from the west for various reasons including a stake at lot 28 agreeing with it.
The funny thing is the underlying subdivision indicates the distance is 13.35-1/2 chains which is 881′. So Hammell’s surveyor just stretched the property so he could get all of the lots in there. The underlying subdivision is Workman and Hellman’s Subdivision, 5 M.R. 175:
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/misc/MR005/MR005-175.pdf -
1 Reply
-
Any old fences? If so, what do they agree with? 8 feet is a lot. Sometimes I find like 6 inches over 800 feet but I usually never proportion as one original mon might be leaning so there’s no way to tell for sure or old old fences agree together and there is no reason to proportion.
Question for clarity, the ‘established corner’ is an original corner? The map doesn’t refer to any markers. Is this shown in original surveyors field notes? And also the stake. Is this a proven original marker from the original surveyor?
Log in to reply.