Columbet v. Pacheco
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Third Judicial District, County of Santa Clara. Ejectment to recover the land on the plaintiff’s side of the division fence, which the defendant claimed was included within the limits of the land measured to her by the Alcalde. 'The plaintiff recovered judgment and' the defendant appealed. * The other facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Crockett, J.:
The controversy in this case is as to the location of the-d-ividing line between the lots of plaintiff and defendants; and it appears from the findings that as early as the year 1818, a division fence was erected to replace a former fence which had gone to decay. This fence included the. premises in controversy within the inclosure of the plaintiff’s grantors and predecessors in interest. There is nothing-to show that from 1818 to 1866 there was any controversy in respect to the location of the fence, or that- it was not acquiesced in as the proper dividing line…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sneed v. OsbornCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- McCormick v. BarnumNew York Supreme Court · 1833
3Cited by17 opinions
- Strosser v. City of Fort WayneIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Price v. De ReyesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Loustalot v. McKeelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Hughes v. WheelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- O'Donnell v. PenneySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1890
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.