Pauly

Pauly v. Broadnax

Good Law
157 Cal. 386·1910 Cal. LEXIS 269·108 P. 271
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 19, 1910L.A. No. 2325.California3,010 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Melvin, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants and from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The action was one in ejectment and presents some of the problems arising from the efforts to retrace the old surveys of the United States government in the Imperial Valley. While admittedly there was a conflict of evidence at the trial, appellant contends that in no material particular was his proof traversed and that the verdict was contrary to the evi dence. He also complains of certain rulings on the admission of evidence and in the instructions to the jury.

At the trial there was no contention that plaintiff was not entitled to the north half of section 36 in township 16 south, range 13 east, San Bernardino base and meridian which was involved in the action; but defendants denied that any of the land occupied by them was located in that half section. Plaintiff, depending upon the official surveys of Derby made in 1854 and Mathewson made in 1856, sought to reestablish the lines of the section 36 in question from the measurements tied to the monuments of the original surveys, which they asserted had been rediscovered by their witnesses. To illustrate…

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.