Skelton mentions this case three time in his book. I don't see what he seems to see but this cite affirms the trial court judgment on a rehearing of an earlier appeal which reversed. Maybe he was reading the 1908 reversal, I'm not sure.
The case involves two large subdivision lots in the City of Los Angeles ( the maps referenced are available on line). Defendant owns part of the north lot bounded on the north by a street and the plaintiff owns the south lot bounded n the south by a street. The controversy involves the lot line between the streets. Plaintiff wants to measure from the plat and defendant likes a line marked by stakes of unknown origin about 16' south of that. Several surveyors testified in favor of the stakes but they are assuming they mark the original boundary.
The Appellate Court refuses to reverse on objections to the common report stakes without more definite evidence of the original survey or measurements from definite monuments of the original survey the streets being of uncertain relationship to the original survey.
From Skelton:
Section 186: Where Locations or Identity is Doubtful. -in Andrews v. Wheeler a call in a deed was merely for the corner of a lot as shown by a designated map, and evidence referring to stakes set by others in making surveys of adjoining lands was held in admissible as it did not identify monuments set by the surveyor in making the survey for the map referred to.
From the opinion:
"In the absence of any evidence of fixed or ascertained monuments of the survey upon which the map was predicated, it was proper for the court to receive the best evidence obtainable. In doing this it might inquire, and it would be important to ascertain, the location of such stakes and monuments as were commonly recognized, accepted and used in lieu of the lost or destroyed original ones. In the absence of more certain evidence, these would be sufficient to support a finding. ( Orena v. Santa Barbara, 91 Cal. 621, 628, [28 Pac. 268].)"
In Section 200 Skelton seems to indicate that Wheeler holds a distance over area (the south lot has a given distance and the north lot area only). I don't see that at all.
Section 215 has to do with apportionment and cites Wheeler on imperfect measurement of overall lines.
The appeal not having been taken within sixty days after the rendition of the judgment ( Code Civ. Proc., sec. 939, subd. 1), the case is not before us on the sufficiency of the evidence, but on its competency and admissibility alone. We find no error in this regard justifying a reversal of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
Allen, P. J., and Taggart, J., concurred.
A petition to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on July 17, 1909.
I would not consider citing this case for any purpose because the merits of the case were not reviewed on appeal.... plus the rules have changed today the tesimony of the surveyors would actually matter.