Tognazzini v. Morganti
Citations
- 84 Cal. 159
- 23 P. 1085
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 778
Syllabus
<p>Boundaries — Relocation of Survey for Patent — Lost Corner-stake —</p> <p>Courses Controlled by Topographical Features and Witness-monuments. — In relocating the boundaries of an official survey upon which a patent of the United States was based, the calls of the field-notes of the survey as to the location of certain topographical features of the country, and of a road and gulch and certain houses described therein as witness-monuments, must prevail over the specified courses of the boundary lines, and the location of a lost corner-stake to which no living witness can testify is not to be fixed by starting from an admitted location of another corner, and surveying the lines of the patent by courses and distances therefrom, if such survey departs from the field-notes of the original official survey in respect to such topographical features and monuments.</p> <p>Id. — Overlapping of Adjoining Ranchos — Evidence—Testimony of Surveyor — Re-examination — Exhibits — Error without Prejudice. — When a surveyor who has made a survey to fix the location of a lost corner-stake which determined the boundary line between adjoining ranchos, states, on re-examination, in elucidation of testimony called out on his cross-examination by appellant’s counsel, that the location of the line as fixed by another surveyor is wrong, because it produced a conflict or overlapping of the ranchos, and the location of the ranchos appears from exhibits put in evidence by appellant, the refusal of the court to strike out such statement, if an error at all, is a trivial error, without prejudice, whether the surveyor was or was not competent to testify as to the location of the ranchos.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that a county may choose to provide a constitutionally authorized service through a contract with a private company
- upholding contract between a county and a private company to provide garbage collection services
- rejecting property owner's argument that solid waste fee is an unlawful tax because garbage collection services were carried out by private companies, because Court previously has held such charges are not taxes
- rejecting property owner’s argument that solid waste fee is an unlawful tax because garbage collection services were carried out by private companies, because Court previously has held such charges are not taxes
- where method of collecting solid waste was authorized, question of whether it was the correct decision is left to the county government, not the courts
- where method of collecting solid waste was authorized, question of whether it was the correct decision is left to the county government, not the courts
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Beatty
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.