Peters v. De Rose Gracia

Citations

• 110 Cal. 89
• 42 P. 455
• 1895 Cal. LEXIS 1022

Syllabus

<p>Partition Fence—Location op Boundary — Conflicting Evidence.— Where there is conflicting evidence as to whether a partition fence was constructed upon the line of an old fence constituting a partition boundary, which had been destroyed by a freshet, or whether the new fence was rebuilt further north than the true line, a finding that it was not rebuilt upon the line of the old lence, but was rebuilt a few paces further north, within the exterior limits of a specified survey, will not be disturbed upon appeal.</p> <p>Id.—Proof of Survey—Faulty Method—Ascertainment of Boundary —Support of Finding.—Where a survey of the boundary line in dispute, which pursued a faulty method of ascertaining the boundary by not commencing at the proper starting point, is admitted in evidence without objection, it becomes evidence, though apparently not the best, of the location of the line in the place .claimed by the plaintiff, and a finding of the court in accordance therewith is supported by the evidence.</p> <p>Id.—Mislocation of Partition Fence — Statute of Limitations — Adverse Possession. —Where it is proven that an agreement existed be- *> tween the owners of adjoining surveys that the land upon which a fence and ditch was located belonged to one of them, and that his land in fact extended further south than the fence and ditch, and that a joint survey would be made to fix the true line, the possession of the other owner to the fence and ditch is not adverse, and the statute of limitations does not run against the true owner.</p> <p>Id. — Declarations of Adjoining Owners — Statements of Deceased Persons — Credibility of Witnesses.—Evidence of the declarations of adjoining owners made long prior to the commencement of the action, some of which were made by deceased persons, for the purpose of showing that it was understood between the adjoining owners that a fence between them was not upon the true partition line is admissible, although it is a just caution addressed to the tr