Hale v. Cottle
Oregon Supreme Court
Plaintiff appeals. When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount. (Hill’s Code, § 855; McClintocle y. Rogers, 11 Ill. 279; Martin v. Carlin, 19 Wis. 454; 88 Am. Dec. 696; Comegys y. Garley, 3 Watts, 280; 27 Am. Dec. 356; Riddlesburg I. <&. C. Co. y. Rogers, 65 Pa. St. 416; Esmond v. Tarbox, 7 Me. 61; 20 Am. Dec. 346; Stafford y.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff appeals. When permanent and visible or ascertained boundaries or monuments are inconsistent with the measurement, either of lines, angles, or surfaces, the boundaries or monuments are paramount. (Hill’s Code, § 855; McClintocle y. Rogers, 11 Ill. 279; Martin v. Carlin, 19 Wis. 454; 88 Am. Dec. 696; Comegys y. Garley, 3 Watts, 280; 27 Am. Dec. 356; Riddlesburg I. <&. C. Co. y. Rogers, 65 Pa. St. 416; Esmond v. Tarbox, 7 Me. 61; 20 Am. Dec. 346; Stafford y. King, 30 Tex. 257; 94 Am. Dec. 304; Hubert y. Bartlett, 9 Tex. 103; Bartlett y. Hubert, 21 Tex. 21; Anderson v. McCormick, 18 Or.…
1Opinion of the CourtBeAN, J.
This is a suit to establish the boundary line between the lands of plaintiff and defendant, and is really to determine, so far as the parties to this suit are concerned, the east line of the donation claim of Marcus Neff, Notification No. 80, Claim 57, in Multnomah county. This claim is bounded on the east by the donation claims of Danford Balch, Notification No. 79, Claim 58, and of Peter Guild, Notification No. 325, Claim 54, plaintiff owning a part of *584tbe Neff claim, and defendant a portion of the Balch and Guild claims.
In September, 1850, Neff being entitled to one-half section of land…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Baldwin v. . BrownNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- White v. LuningSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Davis v. RainsfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
- Higinbotham v. . StoddardNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Ramsey v. LoomisOregon Supreme Court · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Albert v. SalemOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Smitson v. Southern Pacific Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Baker County v. BensonOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Seabrook v. Coos Bay Ice Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1907
- O'GORMAN v. BakerOregon Supreme Court · 1959
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.