In refusing to hold the OHWM over the meander line the Court remarked in Hyman v. Haun, 191 Cal. App. 2d 891 (1961):
It should also be noted that any rules for awarding priorities, as for example, monuments over distances, have been developed as a means for determining the intention of the parties and are rules of construction rather than rules of property. (3 American Law of Property, å¤ 12.115.)
On the other hand the Court extended a Lot line 200' in contradiction to the apparent intent shown on the Subdivision Plat in Swarzwald v. Cooley, 220 Cal. 438 (1934) and Swarzwald v. Cooley, 39 Cal. App. 2d 306 (1940).
Dave Karoly, post: 382299, member: 94 wrote: In refusing to hold the OHWM over the meander line the Court remarked in Hyman v. Haun, 191 Cal. App. 2d 891 (1961):
It should also be noted that any rules for awarding priorities, as for example, monuments over distances, have been developed as a means for determining the intention of the parties and are rules of construction rather than rules of property. (3 American Law of Property, å¤ 12.115.)
And here I thought that meander lines were only run for acreage computations, not to mark the boundary. 🙂
I'm not sure about their example of "monuments over distances" when it would have been more on point to use "natural monuments" over "artificial monuments".
They held 10 acres was the true intention (vs 14 acres).
Bill Dodge used the record meander line in his description. It is now a McDonalds, lawyers office, and BBQ place on the south side of the Noyo River adjacent to Route 1 (on the east side). Dodge was very prolific in Mendocino County in the 1950s to the early 1990s.
The other case adjoins route 1 in Laguna Beach (Orange County).
