About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents
 
advertisement


Subscriptions
Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
     RTN
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By


Product Reviews
Partner Sites

machinecontrolonline 


lbszone.com

GISuser.com

GeoJobs.biz

GeoLearn

 

Spatial Media LLC properties

Associates

ASPRS

newsnow 

Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Decided Guidance: Case Examinations—Wood v. Mandrilla, 167 Cal. 607 (California Supreme Court 1914) Print E-mail
Written by Jason E. Foose, PS   
Sunday, 18 September 2016

A 2.509Mb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

This case is about a misunderstanding between the buyer and seller of land. Both parties took a different meaning of the word "half." The seller originally took title to the whole southwest quarter of Section 30 containing a generous 180 acres per the G.L.O. plat/patent. This quarter section, under one entry and as one tract, was patented in 1872. The plat shows a "lotted" surplus as expected. The buyer subsequently took title and possession of the east half of the seller's quarter section in 1909. In 1914 The Supreme Court of California (The Court) ruled that the seller did in fact convey half of the aggregate area of the quarter section containing 90 acres more or less rather than the standard G.L.O. 80 acres. That's a hard pill for both Federal and local surveyors to swallow however, the Court's decision is well founded and here's why.

First and foremost the Court respected the rights and authority of the 1909 grant. Second, the Court employed the written legal description and preserved the chain of title. Third, the Court recognized that this 1909 grant was the original subdivision of the quarter section. Let's break it down.

The Court respected the rights and authority of the grant. There seems to be no question that a valid conveyance occurred. The Court did not nullify, cancel, or otherwise monkey around with that fact. A good surveyor will recognize this concept and consider a survey as being one of many moving parts in a land grant. The intentions of the property owner are the motive for the measurement. The Court accepted the willful deeds in full force and embraced a person's right to convey and receive property.

The Court employed the written legal description and preserved the chain of title. There was no creation, redistribution, or manipulation of the title to these properties. The question should not be confused with adverse possession or acquiescence but recognized as a simple clarification of a quantity. The legal descriptions left the courtroom the same as they entered. This is important. The Court did not convey any land but rather clarified the expectations of the deed's language according to law. Again, the Court respected the doings of the grant.

The Court recognized that this grant was the original subdivision of the quarter section. This is a big deal to us retracement surveyors because the subdivision in fact occurred outside of the federal arena. The Manual mentions this but appropriately offers little guidance. Why? I suppose because it is truly outside of federal authority. A grantor has the right to divvy up his land how he sees fit. This notion includes original methods, misnomers, and mistakes by his local surveyor. We are obligated to respect that original subdivision as it was performed regardless of original adherence to the Manual of Instruction. The Court wisely recognized that we can't re-cut the cake after we dish out the pieces. In this case it appears that a formal survey was not performed with the land division created by this deed. That doesn't leave us much to work with except perhaps possession and acquiescence. In the absence of an original field survey the Surveyor may be retracing the actions of the owners and evidence according to the deed. Yep, that's right; the owners did the original survey themselves without a license. Surprise! They're allowed to do so in this reality we call "the non-federal arena." Once again, the Court respected the actions of the parties and adheres to the force of the grant.

So, what are the lessons? The biggest thing I see is that the Court did not wave any magic wands and try to make the world right again. The Court simply accepted everything that did or didn't happen. Think about it. There was no order to survey, resurvey, or even mark the line in question and no order to convey anything. The Court simply looked at what the word "half" meant because the parties had two different notions. It's no wonder there was confusion between buyer and seller. No lines run, no monuments set, no occupation lines, no acquiescence and no instrument in the public records defining the "east half" of the SW 1/4 until this transaction. The Court didn't ignore the Manual either. The Court looked at how the tract "should" have been cut up by G.L.O instructions but recognized it never was officially subdivided under those rules. Don't let your mind play tricks with this. The facts were established that the land division happened outside of the federal arena so the normal State definitions were used, not the PLSS meanings. Yes, the land division lies within the PLSS, but private hands created the parcel out of a private domain. It's the same deal as any old sawmill Joe selling the east half of his town lot. Get it? This case is the essence of retracement work, which is of course determining what actually happened rather than what should have happened.

Now, before anybody accuses me of being full of myself, or something else, I'll offer this disclaimer. My initial suggestion to the land owner/ client would most likely be to maintain the integrity of the G.L.O plat and divide the land with PLSS lotting. However, I am merely executing my client's will. The disinterested owner may find it logical to market several equally sized parcels. He is the king of his domain and has that authority.

Interestingly enough the Court dabbled in the unconventional suggestion that lottings are tentative. It also felt that the manual said to use the normal "half way & straight lines" if the lotting didn't take effect. That seems crazier than a pet coon to me but it does kind of simplify things for property owners. Regardless, this case simply points out that the bona fide acts of owners are respected by the courts. The Manual continually says to preserve bona fide rights. When your state code says "refer to the manual", that includes the parts about preserving bona fide rights. This case really isn't a lesson in "what-to-do" surveying methods. I suspect it's more a "what-happens-withoutsurveys" and great example of what bona fide rights look like.

A PDF of this case is available at http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/WOOD_V._MANDRILLA_167Cal.607.pdf

Jason Foose is the County Surveyor of Mohave County Arizona. He originally hails from The Connecticut Western Reserve Township 3, Range XIV West of Ellicott's Line Surveyed in 1785 but now resides in Township 21 North, Range 17 West of the Gila & Salt River Base Line and Meridian.

A 2.509Mb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

 
< Prev   Next >

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Marc Cheves, PS 
Editorial: A Great Year to be a Surveyor
Some magazines have what are called "theme" issues. That is, most of the content is focused on one particular subject. In my 22+ years of survey magazine publishing, my philosophy has always been to have a little bit of everything in each issue, thereby eliminating the possibility that ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Case Examinations: Halverson v. Deerwood Village
Whew! We really beat the snot out of Bryant v. Blevins and practical locations. Well this month we're back on new case that hit the Minnesota Supreme Court's docket in 1982. We've got the familiar gymnastics of jurisprudence featuring an extraordinary array of flying rope stretchers ...
Read the Article
Michel Philips 
Extreme Environment Surveying
A Franco-Chilean team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 rugged handheld for marine cave surveying, gathering data to classify the inaccessible northern half of Madre de Dios for UNESCO World Heritage. The team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 ....
Read the Article
Erik Dahlberg 
The Original Green Engineers
Sometimes, it's best just to leave things as you found them. That's the lesson shared by Dr. Richard Miksad and his students at the University of Virginia. As a result of studies covering nearly a decade, Miksad's teams have developed detailed ....
Read the Article
Dave Lindell, PS 
Test Yourself 49: No Dimensions
In square A-C-D-B with side S, C-E is tangent to the semicircle Q1 with diameter B-D. Q2 is the inscribed circle of A-C-E. The tangent to Q1 and Q2 meets the sides of the square at F and H and intersects C-E at t G. Q3 is the inscribed circle of C-G-H. What is the ratio of the radii of circles ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
Discovery on Grizzly Peak
When First Lieutenant Montgomery M. Macomb arrived in Carson City, Nevada, from Washington D.C., on July 28, 1878, his assigned survey crew from the 4th Artillery was waiting and ready for the new field season. At age 25, Macomb was the leader ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Fighting City Hall Over Land
Once upon a time (1989 to be exact) in a place not so far away from where I live, a man (Francis Galdo) bought a home across the street from a vacant parcel owned by the City of Philadelphia. That parcel, along with others, had been acquired by condemnation back in 1974 subsequent to a 1956 ....
Read the Article
Patrick C. Garner, PS 
Book Review: Boundary Retracement: Processes and Procedures
When I was in my mid-twenties and learning the honorable profession of land surveying, I was lucky to be guided by a mentor who would grab a book off his office shelf and say, "Every surveyor should have a copy of this!" The first example he waved at me was Davis, Foote and Kelly's Surveying ....
Read the Article

deliciousrssnewsletterlinkedinfacebooktwitter

Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
please
contact Amerisurv


Google
 
AMERISURV TOP NEWS

Javad Intros
Total Solution

GOT NEWS? Send To
press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content

Sponsor


News Feeds

 
Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps
Careers

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.

 

Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 

twitter

 




The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
7820B Wormans Mill Road, #236
Frederick MD 21701
301-620-0784
301-695-1538 - fax