Wheatley v. San Pedro, L.A. & Salt Lake R.R.
147 P. 135 · California Supreme Court · 1915
Facts
The case concerns a dispute over title to an irregular-shaped strip of land along the northerly shore of the Bay of San Pedro in Los Angeles County. The land was originally part of Rancho San Pedro, and in 1855, the Dominguez heirs conveyed a tract, including the future Wilmington townsite, to B.D. Wilson et al. The southerly boundary of this tract was described as the ordinary high-water mark between points 'B' and 'C', which was a meandering line. The land in controversy lies between this meandering high-water mark and a straight line drawn between points 'B' and 'C'. In 1892, the Dominguez heirs deeded an adjacent tract to the Terminal Land Company, the defendant's grantor, describing the line between 'C' and 'B' as a straight line and "along the south boundary of Wilmington." The defendant paid taxes on the disputed land for over five years, but neither party actively possessed or improved the specific disputed strip until shortly before the plaintiff initiated this action to quiet title.
Procedural history
This action was brought to quiet title. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. The defendant appealed, and the cause was transferred to the District Court of Appeal for the Second District, which affirmed the judgment and order. The cause was then transferred to this court (the Supreme Court) for rehearing, which subsequently adhered to and adopted the District Court's opinion.
Issue
Did the defendant acquire title to the disputed strip of land by prescriptive title (adverse possession) or by the boundary becoming fixed through long acquiescence and agreement? What is the true boundary line between the parties' properties?
Holding
The court held that the true boundary line is the ordinary high-water mark, not the straight line claimed by the defendant. The defendant did not acquire title to the disputed land by prescriptive title or through acquiescence.
Rule
When a deed describes a boundary by a natural monument (like the ordinary high-water mark) and also by a straight-line course with angles and distances, the natural monument controls, especially when supported by other historical documents. For a boundary to be fixed by acquiescence, there must be an express or implied agreement between the parties, active possession, and a dispute or question as to the true location. Constructive adverse possession under color of title (Code Civ. Proc. § 322) requires the claimant to actually occupy some part of the *disputed* land belonging to the true owner, not merely the undisputed portion of their own land, to establish notice and a cause of action for the true owner.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.