The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1892-05-17
THE GRANT LINE ROAD"
Road Overseer PIummer Upheld by
the Supreme Court.
That Tribunal Affirms the Judgment,
and Holds That the Fences Must
All be Removed.

clerk GOVan'S office a decision IN the
case of A. NJ. Plummer respondent VS..
w. G. Sheldon, a. Null and Sarah W.
Belcher
Plummer, Road Overseer in this
county, brought a separate action against
each of the appellants above mentioned
for the obstruction of public road. For
convenience the appeals were heard upon
a single, consolidated statement on mo-
ton for new trial and the judgment
roll of each case.
The Superior Court found in favor OF
the plaintiff in each case, and from the
judgment and orders denying new trial
these appeals were prosecuted. The de-
termination of one involves that of the
others.
The main questions raised for re-
versal of the judgments and orders were
that the evidence did not support the
findings; and that, even if the findings
are supported by the evidence, they do
not justify the judgment.
The facts, as set out in the findings,
were about these: About twenty Ave
| years before these actions were brought
there was 4 certain road in Sacramento
/ County called the Grant Line Road
which was supposed to run along the
! Dase-llne of grant of land from the
| Mexican Government, and patented by
the Government OF the United States to
one Jared Sheldon. The defendants
owned land included in this grant, and
along the westerly boundary OF the grant
/ this road ran and was much travelled. 1t
was thorough1are commencing at the
| Upper Stockton road, and followed
| thence the line Of the grant, as first sur
yeyed by one Cleal, TO a public road
called the Jackson road, which runs from
| this city to the town of Jackson III ANA
! dor County.
| The Grant line ROAD was sixty feet
! wide, and was laid out on the ground by
| throwing up furroW on each side
thereof aud narrowing in the center, and
was plainly and Visibly marked upon
! the ground throughout its course. 1t
| was laid out by those who supposed they
| were acting under the authority OF the
! Board of Supervisors of the county, al
| though the proceedings taken, as shown
IN the evidence, do not appear TO have
been entirely correct, or sufficient to con-
| stltute 1t public road.
FROM the time it was so laid out it was
travelled by the public, and constituted
for the period of ten or twelve years the
main line of travel between the south
eastern or lower part Of the county and
| jackson and Placerville, and was COM
monty called and known as the Grant
! line road" After that time the travel
fell off to some extent, but the road con-
! tinued to be used by the public on the
! Cleal line, as originally laid out, until
some time in the years 1878 or 1874.
! About April, 1873, the patent to the
grant from the Government of the
| United States was received and recorded,
aud it then appeared that what had
| been always uppOsCd-according TO the
! Cleal Suryey-tO he the true baSe-line OF
! the grant was not such line, but that the
| true line was established by another
! called the Thompson survey. The effect
! Of this was TO throw the base-iine of the
! grant further westward, commencing at
the little town of Sheldon, and running
to where the road in controversy inter
! sectS the Jackson road.
| Thus it happened that what was the
original Grant line road now appeared to
| be not on the line, as had been supposed,
| but inside the grant, and varying from a
| few feet at Sheldon to several hundred
! feet at the intersection of the Jackson
road.
After this last base line had become
! known and established, the road in con-
! troversy, not having been up to that time
generally fenced out by adjoining pro-
| prietors, they began to fence out TO that
line and inclose their lands; and by COM
mon consent the thoroughfare was
|
| Thompson line; and the old roadbed be-
came part of the inclosed premises. But
! those building fences across the Cleal line
| left outside these fences enough of their
| land Tor the road along the Thompson
line. That is, they all recognized the
road to have been established as a thor
! oughfare, but changed its location by
common consent to where it was in
tended to run-that is, along the true line
| Of the grant.
Both before and since this change down
! TO the year 1888, from about the year 1858,
| it was an open road, travelled by the pub
! lie, recognized as public highway, and
! was worked and repaired by the county.
! Nc objection was made by anyone up to
! the year 1888,
| When the road was changed by general
consent MulPs land was not fenced, but
| in 1888 he fenced and INSTRUCTED the road.
! Belcher then fenced across the road also.
and Sheldon fenced in a portion of it in
! 1850. These findings were supported by
| the evidence.
"The only question: says the Supreme
| Court, ''left for determination is neither,
! from the facts as found, it follows as an
! ultimate fact necessarily deduced there
from, that the land here involved was
dedicated by the defendants or their
| predecessors in interest for the purposes
| of a public road. We think the facts. as
| houiu, dlS sulhCleuL W SuoN GndI Tue dcIS
! of defendants or their predecessors are
| inconsistent with any construction ex-
cept that the land was used by the public
( for a highway, with the consent and ap-
prevail of the owners thereof.
I'VE do not think that any Of the cases
| in opposition to this view cited by the APP
/ pellants involved any such state of facts
as those here. We conclude, therefore,
that the contentious of the defendants are
without merit, and advise that the judg-
ments and orders be affirmed"