Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-10-25
Important Ruling By Chief
Justice Zane Today,
As AFFECTING CITY PROPERTY
his Honor Holds That Original Sur
Ysys Must Govern.
THE CRY ESorNEEHs rHoy'Sor
Nh. p,vorce market SIN Farther
s,ppIied.-uivu Matters Disposed
otiu ihe Third District Court

fudge Zane this morning cot the
Judicial ball rolling by rendering ms
,eelsion ia the suit OF Adam Duncan
va w. II. II. 5pa1ord and Elmer
spaaord, the hearing Of which Occur
picd the entire day yesterday.
The action was brought TO recover
n,rlp OF land two and n half feet IN
width between lots and ., block 10,
Mat b, together with damages la the
eum Of $1,000. The property is siluoted
I'm the First ward. Its actual value
is not considerable, but mo
main object Ia view wai to
obtain ruling AZ 10 the correctness OF
the land survey, which Affects large
extent OF property, apart from the land
now Ia litigation. Plaintiff alleged
.ownorshlp by virtue OF deeds to tue
property aud upon dividing lines as
made by surveyors ia 1873 aud 1883
The defendant claimed the two and a
half feet upon survey recently made
Following 10 the full text OF his
,Honot's decision:
In this action--an action OF eject
lmenl-the plaintiff claims that the line
Ia where an Old fence was built, where
hu old water ditch existed, and where
stakes were placed-lOng eXI.trg upon
the ground-iudicntiug the Former anu
line, us he insists, betwoSA the TWO
lots, The defendant ROLES upon re.
cent survey by Mr.. DOfemus, aud the
question arises, first, where ought this
line TO be, In the light Of the evidences?
IL seems from the testimony OF the
plaintifi that he took possession, IN tho
name OF his father, In 1862 or 1888, OF
lot .. At that time hu states that
the possession WAS taken up to the
lines that he now insista on, aud
That In 1872 the tile was
acquired under the tOwnsite law from
the mayor VI the city In accordance
with those lines. a ditch had existed
for years upon the line here In dispute,
"A fence was erected and stake put
down; and In 1889 Mr.. Charles w.
Hardy made survey aud placed his
Stake ON the line where tho plaintih
claims It IL. His starting points were
certain monuments no montlonB n his
testimony, but which may not have
been very reliable. This fence was put
up Mt the time and posts are still
standing, although II was
very poor fence at the date Of
the bringing OF this action. After
the defendant took possession, IL mp.
pears, some two years ago, he also
erected fence on the same lipe.
After Mr.. Doremus became city On.
Rineer, that gentleman discovered that
the original survey Of the city was
very inaccurate. The fences were not
In line; the Importance of re-survey
was suggested, and he was authorized
TO make one. In making that ro.sur.
Vey he aimed to ascertain the corners
M they were originally put down.
But hnnlly,it seems, ho made survey
across the city, aud took the old
fences anu some Of the stakes. He
found stakes IN sonie cases, but not, as
no thiuks, the original ones. This
Original stAkos were put down pro-
baby some forty years ngO, according
TO the testimony. They were not Of "A
very durable quality, and had all dis.
appeared briOie tue now survey was
made about two year, ago; but there
were come stakes found along
these streets, anu he also came
across old fences, always, how
ever, In line. Ho also Ia
qulrtd OF old settlefs, and in that way
aimcu 10 make his corners correspond
~ ncarly "a he could with the original
survey. He also aimed 10 do az little
harm AZ possible, as he said, 10 persons
who had had possession for long
time, and whose fences indicated their
lots. In some blocks whore II was
well established that the corner was
not in limo he would eiinUt tho old
corners. So that Mr.. Dsremu6' sur
Vey, OF cOuree, as Initiating the Origl.
nRl corners, IA not reliable at all; he
doesn't regard II 70, but deemed II
necessary 10 have a syalem aud to es-
tabllsh these corners. The probabs.
bilities sre that these viii result In
causing q great many losses; because II
Ia no doubt the law, VOL
settled, that monuments control
courses and distances; and where.
ever the weight oi evidence suatgins
the original corner M such, aud II
happens to be- out OF the line OF Mr..
D0rrmus' survey, the original survey
must govern Ia all cases.
Now 1t seems that this new survey,
which was last made, unset,les most
OF the fences aud their lines, IL would
cut one brick house, according to tho
evidence In this case, that has been
built for some length Of time, and re-
move this line that has been theTu
recognized by the plaintiff ut least for
about thirty years, aud by the parties
occupying both lots for twenty years.
They haveoccupiod with respect 70 this
llnei they have cultivated their lands
and made their improvements with re-
Bpeot 10 this line; anu OF course II
would not do 10 adopt any such System
ms would roAult Ia intermina0le III
cation, wrong and Injustice. The city
has no hight to settle privat,
disputes between parties. Whenever
property owners sec iit 10 recognizes hi'
snrveY At Is all right; but who're they
90 not aud they can establish by suili
Client evidence that tiio line Ia not &C
CorGiDg to his survey, why, that line
must sand.
The testimony In this case shows
that In 1881 the parties put up u q 90
blth MIR. Allen (Spanord's preiecesso
ia interest) and Mr.. Duncan had
fence built which they agreed upon
There WAS n stake put up; that wa
understood; and II IL not sutlloien
now 10 say that IT was = mere mleisk,
Of theirs. They Occupied according y
", and agreed, substantially, that
should b. the Hue.
Inn defaudnuI nlso fiuaigla uuHu NJ