This is interesting. This case happened in the same mountains where the famous "HOLLYWOOD" sign stands. The Rancho involved appears to be a large cemetery now.
The Agreed Boundary Doctrine (California) is discussed but found not operative in this case. The opinion takes a couple of paragraphs essentially saying, "you have to be reasonable" when establishing the line.
Estoppel comes into play. Statements made to the defendant by the Plaintiff's predecessor are denied during trial but apparently the Trial Court believed whoever testified the statements were made. The Appellate Courts will accept the Trial Court's assessment of credibility.
There is a caution on this case (per LexisNexis) but I don't know what that is until I look at it on the Law Libraries subscription.
GRANTS PASS LAND AND WATER COMPANY (a Corporation), Appellant, v. JOHN BROWN, Respondent
L. A. No. 3282
Supreme Court of California
168 Cal. 456; 143 P. 754; 1914 Cal. LEXIS 353
The case can be read at:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/
Search by citation: 168 Cal. 456
DDSM :beer:
It only took a hundred years for that law to be undone. Utah got off track but has gotten back on the rails of late.
That's cool-you have the diagram.
I was able to look at the Plat but not the Court's diagram.
They knocked down Agreed Boundary in this case but upheld Estoppel on a portion only as I understand it.
I am researching the Agreed Boundary Doctrine in California and that popped up somehow. I'm trying to figure out Judicial thinking on what they consider to be sufficient evidence to establish the boundary which can be a bit like herding cats.
"Absent proof of acceptance of the fence as a boundary by owners on both sides, there was no basis for an inference of uncertainty and agreement. (Compare Clapp v. Churchill, supra, 164 Cal. 741 [assumption that hedge marked boundary by plaintiffs; no evidence of agreement with defendants] with Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, supra, 51 Cal.2d at p. 708 [evidence that adjoining owner acquiesced in substantial improvements encroaching over true boundary for 26 years]; Vella v. Ratto, supra, 17 Cal.App.3d at 740 [evidence that prior owners on both sides accepted fence as boundary and that parties took title as bounded by fence]; Kunza v. Gaskell (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 201, 205 [154 Cal.Rptr. 101] [evidence both sides treated fence as boundary and acquiesced in neighbors' use of land up to fence]; Zachery v. McWilliams (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 57, 60-61 [104 Cal.Rptr. 293] [evidence owners on both sides accepted fence as boundary].)" -from Armitage v. Decker (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 887.
Clapp is very similar to Armitage in facts. The physical evidence in Ernie was improvements a lot more substantial than just a fence, that being a building and concrete walkway. Ernie doesn't have direct evidence of an agreement but later cases seem to indicate it would still be upheld today. I'm still chasing it down. I haven't read the other cites from Armitage which contains a lot of cites and a pretty good discussion of the Doctrine.
Armitage was an Attorney (listed by the California Bar as resigned with charges pending) and he apparently represented himself. His unethical and just generally despicable behavior seems to have annoyed the Judges and Justices he encountered and they sank him but good. Funny and sad at the same time.
also from Armitage...
"While the views of these fairly recent owners are not conclusive as to the intent of the owners at the time the fence was constructed, the fact that owners on the east side of the line were aware of the true boundary tends to rebut any inference that the original owners on that side were uncertain as to the boundary of their property."
