Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.

Citations

• 129 F. 668
• 64 C.C.A. 180
• 1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4084

Syllabus

<p>1. Boundaries — When Calls and Courses and Distances Conflict.</p> <p>In cases of conflicts between monuments called in a conveyance and the courses and distances there noted, the former, if standing in their original positions, prevail.</p> <p>If monuments called have been lost or removed, the places where they were originally set may be shown by parol or documentary evidence, and, if proved to the satisfaction of the jury by a fair preponderance of testimony, they prevail over the courses and distances.</p> <p>If the monuments called have been lost or removed, and their original locations are not proved, the courses and distances control the description, and must be followed in its application to the land.</p> <p>2. Same — Parol Evidence to Change Calls of Monuments.</p> <p>Parol evidence is incompetent to substitute in a conveyance a call for another monument in the place of the call for the original monument there contained.</p> <p>A round stake four inches in diameter, set loosely six inches in the ground between two -convenient reference points within four feet of it, with two blazes upon it, and an inscription with a lead pencil of the figures “3-2309” upon the later blaze, does not fill the description of a post four inches square, with the figures “3-2309” cut into it, set firmly in the ground, where no reference points are available.</p> <p>8. Cross-Examination — Right of — Discretion in Allowing.</p> <p>A full and fair cross-examination of a witness upon the subjects of his direct examination is a right, and not a privilege, of the party against whom he is called, and its denial or substantial restriction is reversible error;</p> <p>The allowance of cross-examination is discretionary only, after the right has been fairly exercised.</p> <p>If 1. See Boundaries, vol. 8, Cent. Dig. § 18.</p> <p>4. Same — Limited to Subjects of Direct Examination.</p> <p>It is the general rule in the federal courts that the cross-examination of a witness should be limited