Penry

Penry v. Richards

Good Law
52 Cal. 496
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1877No. 8668California579 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

A map is always presumed to represent a survey, and a reference to the map is a reference, to the survey. (Jackson v. Cole, 16 Johns. 257 ; Jackson v. Freer, 17 Johns. 29 ; Chinoeth et al. v. Haskell's Lessees, 3 Peters, 93 ; O'Farrell v. Harney, 51 Cal. 125 .)

The stakes showing the actual lines of the streets and blocks must prevail over the map, and courses and distances, points of compass and initial points. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 2077; Feris v. Cooven, 10 Cal. 630 , and cases cited.)

W. C. Stratton, for the Eespondents.

The map referred to in the deed must be taken as a part of the deed, and the map must be regarded as giving the true description of the land conveyed. ( Caldwell v. Senter, 30 Cal. 542 ; Vance v. Force, 24 Cal. 435 ; 3 Wasburn’s Eeal Property, 367.)

If there be a conflict between the survey of Haley and his *499 map, the map must govern, because it is referred to in the deed, and is a part of the deed, and neither the deed nor map make mention of stakes at the corners of the block. And courses and distances referred to on a map must govern, in preference to any object on the ground not referred to in the deed. (Powers v. Jackson, 50 Cal. 429 ; Code…

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.