From Daley v. Gruber, 361 Mich. 358 (1960), 104 NW 2d 807 - Mich: Supreme Court 1960:
Relations between the parties became strained. Defendants erected what is described in the record as a "Page wire fence." In the course of erecting this fence, which marked the extent of defendants' claim to the strip, they destroyed, plaintiff testified ("grubbed out" was her expression), in her absence, the forsythia, mock orange, lilac, hyacinths, and other flowers and shrubs she had planted. The fence erected appears from photographs in exhibit to be both hog-tight and bull-strong. It was equally effective, as the trial court remarked, to "prevent the passage of the dove of peace."
Apparently there is an established 1/16th corner involved:
Theoretically, it ought to be 1320 feet east of the south quarter post. Indeed, at this point the surveyor engaged by plaintiff, Mr. Black, found an iron stake in the base of a maple tree. Theoretically also, it ought to be 1320 feet west of the southeast corner post. Actually, however, it was discovered, there was an overrun of 6.56 feet between the south quarter post and the southeast corner post.
Fundamentally, however, the courts have observed a consistent policy, the same policy that is behind statutes of limitation and the doctrine of res judicata, namely, the policy of repose. Their decisions have been guided by the principle that settled boundaries shall be allowed repose and shall not be disturbed. In many cases there are elements of estoppel and in others there are agreements of the parties. But if the lack of an agreement threatens a settled boundary we do not hesitate to "imply" agreement, sometimes from the conduct of the parties, or from surrounding circumstances,[2] just as we do in other cases.[3]
Google Scholar link:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8320763800664578473&q=practical+location&hl=en&as_sdt=4,23
> ... Defendants erected what is described in the record as a "Page wire fence"...
I learned the term "page wire" while working in Canada. Here in the States people usually prefer to call it "Hog Wire".
>...The fence erected appears .. to be both hog-tight and bull-strong. It was equally effective, as the trial court remarked, to "prevent the passage of the dove of peace."....
Some judges have a way with words.
Here is an Oklahoma case that discusses their establishment doctrines...
Lake v. Crosser, 216 P. 2d 583 - Okla: Supreme Court 1950
202 Okla. 582 (1950)
Apparently OK doesn't enforce Acquiescence in the case of mutual mistake, not the case in other jurisdictions. This case also has a lengthy dissent which is interesting.
> Here is an Oklahoma case that discusses their establishment doctrines...
The case of Threet v. Polk summarizes the history of the doctine of "mutual mistake" in Oklahoma, with an Oregon connection.
Norgard v. Busher
"...We think that our laws should now be clarified and we hold that position under a mistaken belief of ownership satisfies the element of hostility or adverseness in the application of the doctrine of adverse possession...."
FWIW, Adverse Possession cases are comparatively rare in OK. Most boundary disputes are argued on the basis of Recognition and Acquiescence. The reverse is true in Oregon & Washington.
Thanks for those, I'll add them to my list.
It has been suggested by a friend I convert my California Agreed Boundary Doctrine article to a national article which is an interesting exercise given the variety around the country.
> Apparently there is an established 1/16th corner involved:
Actually, doesn't the case turn upon a part of the Southeast 1/4 of the section that isn't a proper PLSS part? Unless I misunderstood the record, the entire SE 1/4 was owned by a private individual who sold off the East 1/2. I assume that was how the land was described, i.e. as "East 1/2". In that context, wouldn't it be nearly always relevant to inquire what the parties intended by the "East 1/2"? Where there was a fence in place, the ordinary meaning of "half" as "one of two more or less equal parts into which any thing capable of division may be divided" or "one of two more or less equal parts into which a thing has been divided" would be the usual and ordinary understanding of the language of that description.
Texas courts have distinguished between matters where a line was acquiesced in by the parties in ignorance of the location of the true line and where that original location could be determined, and those where the evidence of the original location was thin and unconvincingly indefinite. In my view, where there is no conclusive evidence that would definitely show where a line was originally placed, and where the supposed line that the parties have acquiesced in isn't remarkably inequitable, then as the survey evidence gets thin, the evidence of occupation and acceptance becomes strong. Where the survey evidence is strong, the evidence of occupation and ignorant acceptance simply looks like a corrigible mistake, absent some other fact or circumstance aside from the mere passage of time.
I agree, Kent.
Often the Courts in PLSSia use equitable doctrines to solve problems that could be solved other ways, such as original boundaries.
