Legal Opinion

Joaquin v. Shiloh Orchards

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 23, 1978No. Civ. 3521PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

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…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sneed v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  2. Young v. BlakemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Martin v. LopesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  5. Duncan v. PetersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Halladay v. CluffUtah Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Mesnick v. CatonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
  3. Halladay v. CluffUtah Supreme Court · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API