Walsh v. Hill, 38 Cal. 481, 487 (1869): ÛÏIn conclusion, upon this branch of the case we deem it proper to say, that in the construction of written instruments, we have never derived much aid from the technical rules of the books. The only rule of much value - one which is frequently shadowed forth, but seldom, if ever, expressly stated in the books - is to place ourselves as near as possible in the seats which were occupied by the parties at the time the instrument was; then, taking it by its four corners, read it.Û
WHITE v. CLAUS SPRECKELS,, 75 Cal. 610 (1888): "What are boundaries is a matter of law; but where they are is a matter of fact. ( Bolton v. Lann, 16 Tex. 96.)"
Yes, there's a Maine case with nearly the same language from the court. I remember being a young green land surveyor to whom it seemed like a Zen koan. It took years of study and experience for me to get it.
Dave Karoly, post: 336841, member: 94 wrote: Walsh v. Hill, 38 Cal. 481, 487 (1869): ÛÏIn conclusion, upon this branch of the case we deem it proper to say, that in the construction of written instruments, we have never derived much aid from the technical rules of the books. The only rule of much value - one which is frequently shadowed forth, but seldom, if ever, expressly stated in the books - is to place ourselves as near as possible in the seats which were occupied by the parties at the time the instrument was; then, taking it by its four corners, read it.Û
WHITE v. CLAUS SPRECKELS,, 75 Cal. 610 (1888): "What are boundaries is a matter of law; but where they are is a matter of fact. ( Bolton v. Lann, 16 Tex. 96.)"
Thanks Dave.
Cee Gee: Ya, me too 🙂 What has been an even bigger "eye-opener" is the unbelievable number of "surveyors" who are currently practicing that have no clue what the courts are telling us and have been telling us of well over 150 years. And here we sit arguing about how many years of education and/or experience should be required before licensure, but rarely seriously evaluate the content of that "education" or the quality of the "experience" Sadly, far too many of the "surveyors" who haven't a clue about what the courts are/have been telling us are teaching our new generation. (or even worse, sit on our licensing boards.......)
Brian Allen, post: 337007, member: 1333 wrote: Thanks Dave.
Cee Gee: Ya, me too 🙂 What has been an even bigger "eye-opener" is the unbelievable number of "surveyors" who are currently practicing that have no clue what the courts are telling us and have been telling us of well over 150 years. And here we sit arguing about how many years of education and/or experience should be required before licensure, but rarely seriously evaluate the content of that "education" or the quality of the "experience" Sadly, far too many of the "surveyors" who haven't a clue about what the courts are/have been telling us are teaching our new generation. (or even worse, sit on our licensing boards.......)
Yes indeed Brian. What really amazes me is the number of "expert measurers" who, even after being exposed to Cooley and Lucas and others, still don't have the faintest comprehension of boundary law. They just keep measuring away and setting shiny new monuments next to decades old rusted pipes because they are a few tenths of a foot "out of position." I just don't get it...
Dave or any other Colleague -
Can you point me to the complete cases please ?
Thank you.
Derek
_________________
Walsh v. Hill, 38 Cal. 481, 487 (1869): ÛÏIn conclusion, upon this branch of the case we deem it proper to say, that in the construction of written instruments, we have never derived much aid from the technical rules of the books. The only rule of much value - one which is frequently shadowed forth, but seldom, if ever, expressly stated in the books - is to place ourselves as near as possible in the seats which were occupied by the parties at the time the instrument was; then, taking it by its four corners, read it.Û
WHITE v. CLAUS SPRECKELS,, 75 Cal. 610 (1888): "What are boundaries is a matter of law; but where they are is a matter of fact. ( Bolton v. Lann, 16 Tex. 96.)"
I don't think you can get these on Google Scholar but if you e-mail me at david dot karoly at fire dot ca dot gov I will respond with the PDF files tomorrow.
Alternatively you can go to http:/www.courts.ca.gov and under published opinions there is a link to go to a LexisNexis California only service which allows you to look up any California published case. You can find these by party name or put in the book and page of the cite.