Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Minnette, 115 Cal.App.2d 698 (1953)
252 Pac.2d 642
West's: 59 Boundaries key 3(6) Control of lines marked or surveyed over other elements.
Minnette purchased a 50'x100' Lot beneath P.G.&E. powerlines which were in an easement granted by the owners of the parent tract. Minnette built a 42'x50' building under the powerlines in the belief there was no easement. Apparently the descriptions indicated that the centerline of the easement actually did not cross Minnette's property and the powerlines were outside of their easement. In this case the descriptions mention the Surveys which set the stakes used to build the facilities. In addition, Minnette complains that their Title Report made no mention of the easement (presumably because it appeared from the public records that the easement did not cross Minnette's property) and therefore they had no notice. The Court points out that they could stand on their property and see powerlines running a mile north with no buildings under them and they could turn around and see them running south with no buildings under them. The Court goes on to explain actual notice and inquiry notice and rules the Minnette's were charged with inquiring with P.G.&E. why it thought it had an easement.
The Court also explains practical construction of a deed contract: ""Where the parties themselves so construe a deed by their subsequent acts that there can be no reasonable ground to doubt the correct interpretation of the descriptions used, the location so fixed by the parties themselves and acquiesced in by them over the years would control any technical construction of the deeds." citing Grant v. Bannister, 160 Cal. 774 (1911), 781, 118 Pac. 253.
Grant is an interesting case too, although it has nothing to do with boundaries being a partnership dispute over a failed marble quarry business. The Court in that case states a couple of times that Grant is an Attorney and, reading between the lines, they give him zero sympathy because as an Attorney he is expected to know a lot of things lay people don't.
Sometimes the Appellates get it right, using common sense and common law principles.
I had a law school professor (who was a sitting judge) call the Justices at the high court the Supremes.
