Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1899-03-09


.out actions IF he ouan,i In which both
uca4ls:s.i +tr ua-Iucc uf year: t.al
the lie So c-sahll~bea ~@- knrwu az tie
Van Ign p linz. and thrt he 4aud 35-l00
uumholdt County, as shown by the lines
established by that survey.
In 1887 the Legislature passed an Act
requiring the SurVeyor-G4ucral Of the
| State to make a survey of all raijrond~ in
the State which extend from one boml-
Diary line to the other, and determine the
umb Der of miles of main and side track
in each of tie counties of the State; to
place monuments at all points where
such railroad crosses any county line,
and mark on the sides Of such m0uu-
ments facing the respective counties the
rame of the county and the number of
miles of railroad in SUCH county: the
number Of miles of main ana side track,
thus ascertained, shall he filed in the
office of the Secretary OF state. and Z copy
OF the same filed with the County Re
coIder Of each of the cuuutle through
which said railroad extends. The second
: NtNtlSti - ttto ~ HibN l't'h thtl Ntiti
the survey was completed and the map
of The same WAS filed as required in sec
ton one, it should be prima tacie evi-
dence in all the courts Of this State of the
facts therein contained.
Statutes 1857, p. 81.
It appears as Il matter of fact, hat the
survey made by the Surveyor-GeneraI
under this statute placed the monument
, and 35-l0O mi ee west Of the line estab-
lished 10y the joint action of the counties
in 1870. and from that time until the pres
ent Lander County has asserted the right
to assess that part Of the railroad lying
heI"e"n the monuments, although not
''Iaiming or exercising the right To assess
the other real property lying between the
lines made by the same. At the lime OF
the survey made by the Survevur-Gcn-
eral there was no dispute between the
counties as to the true boundary line
they. had law fully adopted and acQui-
e<ced in the line as established 10y the
Van Lynip survey, and so far as it APP
} pears from the facts it marked the true
boundary. Neither was the Surveyor.
General authorized or directed 10y the Act
of 1851 to establish new or other lines
and from the facts as stipulated his act in
erecting a monument at the point indi.
Gated was clearly the result of some mi>.
take not made apparent by the record
Nor was the Al. intended to change il
any respect the boundaries of any Of tn,
counties as they already existed. Furth
.v5pDrC - w met i,+orl,l -IAt Il =, .,~
Vey made by him should be regarded OF
considered as conclusive. otherwise tn,
q effect of the maps and survey would no
7 have been limited to prima facie evidenc,
of the fact recited therein, and infcren
f italy authority given to contradict thos,
= facts. Neither county regarded ant
treated the line established by the surve,
made hy the Surveyor-General as con
elusive, as the stipulated facts show tina
+ Humboldt County continued to oxercis
: its right to assess all property other tina
: the = and $500 miles Of railroad within
the disputed territory, and Lander count
n for some reason, was satisfied to clair
the disputed right to assess the > All
: 35-l00 miles of railroad. 1t therefore fol
lows, that the true boundary line havin
been established 10y the joint action (
4 the appellant and respondent in IS
. under authority of law, and acquiesce
O therein, and the Act of 1887 not being a
Act authorizing the establishment of
ne" line or TO change the line alread
a established, or TO change the ]boundarie
O of the counties as they then existed, an,
o. the acts TO be done by the Surveyor-Gen
e eral not being conclusive, or intended t
r be conclusive of the facts to be estat
a lished within the true scope of the -Ac
/ and the , and 35-I0O miles of railrOa
.e being within Humboldt County, wer
4 properly taxable therein under our Law
A But it is claimed that the acquiescence
# Humboldt County in the exercise of IL
IF right of Lander County to assess til
? property from the years 1887 to 1893 il
n elusive, estOps the respondent from que
J. tiCning the boundary line fixed and d
terinined by the SurveyOr-General. tt
70 claim Is undoubtedly a correct statemel
ID of the rule, and should govern in
Il proper case.
I'd In one of the cases cited by the al
peLant in support of its claim, in a
At action to determine a disputed bOundar
- line between counties, it was held, til;
$ where the language in an Act fixing ii
ne boundary line between two counties W.
he 80 ambiguous as to create a doubt as
I'd where the line was to be established,
D. would be proper in solving the doubt
r consider the acts of courts, assessors, &C
ne lectors Of taxes and other officers havil
20 duties to perform limited to the respe
I'd tive counties, recognizing and acting upC
81 The assumption I"t a iong time that
I'd given hne Was the ''i'e BOUNDARY line.
ne Edwards Cuu.tN -. white Count