Joaquin

Joaquin v. Shiloh Orchards

Good Law
148 Cal. Rptr. 495·1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 1853·84 Cal. App. 3d 192·7 A.L.R. 4th 46
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 23, 1978Civ. 3521California2,232 words

Opinion

Opinion

Franson, J.

Introduction

The fundamental question presented by this quiet title action is the extent of the trial court’s obligation to fix the location of an agreed boundary between contiguous owners of land where the monument fixing the line (a fence) has been removed without a survey or other marking to identify its precise location, As we shall explain, the trial court is required to fix the location of the agreed boundary according to the evidence presented at trial if it is reasonably possible to do so. Thus, in the present case the court erred in refusing to determine the location of the agreed boundary and in quieting title in respondents according to their complaint.

Statement of Facts

Prior to 1942 the Bank of America was the common owner of the adjoining parcels of real property now owned by appellant and respon dents, the boundary line of which is the subject of this controversy. On April 6, 1942, the bank sold one parcel to the respondents’ predecessors in interest and on March 1, 1943, sold the other parcel to the appellant’s predecessor in interest. The deed to both parcels described their common boundary ás the quarter section line separating the southwest quarter…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.