Case Name: The Lessee of Buckley et al. v. Blackwell's Heirs
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1841-12
Citations: 10 Ohio 508
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Lessee of Buckley et al. v. Blackwell’s Heirs.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 10
Pages: 508–510

Head Matter:
*The Lessee of Buckley et al. v. Blackwell’s Heirs.
A call “ up the creek,” in a patent, means ordinarily to run with the creek.
This is an action of ejectment from the county of Pickaway.
The defendants are the owners of two surveys, 534 and 1286, on the west side of Darby creek. The plaintiff owns survey No. 1678, on the east side of the creek.
The plain line on the plat represents the original calls of Blackwell’s two surveys: Beginning at A, on Darby’s creek, “ at a wal nut, elm, and honey locust, running up the creek N. 46° W. 20 poles,” and so on by course and distance,as represented on the plat, without any artificial marks, till you come to D, three sycamores, “thence N. 87° W. 38 poles,” and so on by the course and distance, as represented on the plat, without any artificial marks,' till you come to E. To make the survey close, however, the last course has to be changed so as to terminate at B, two red oaks and a white ash, upper corner on the creek, of survey No. 534. From B, following the calls of survey No. 1286, “ up the creek N. 24° E. 165 poles,” and so on by course and distance till you come to F. To make the survey close, however, the last course has .to be changed so as to terminate at C, a timber corner on the creek.
The dotted line on the plat represents the original calls of'Clonson’s survey,' under whom the plaintiffs claim: Beginning at G, “ lower corner on the creek, two white oaks and a Spanish or red oak, thence S. 65° W. 10 poles, crossing the creek to three sycamores (H), thence up the creek, on the lower sido, N. 87° W. 38 poles,” and so on by course and distance, as represented on the plat, without any artificial marks, till you come to I. The last line calls to terminate at the corner at B,' and to effect this the course and distance are to be changed accordingly. From B “up the creek N. 24° E. 165 poles; N. 20° E. 100 poles; N. 3° E, 138 poles. This line terminates at J, but calls to cross ihe creek and terminate at K, two hickories and a buckeye, upper corner on the creek of Clenson’s survey.
509] ^Blackwell’s surveys and patents are the eldest.
Darby creek is a small stream not navigable.
The defendants are in possession of all the land on the west side of the creek, and the plaintiffs seek to recover so much of it as is without the plain, and within the dotted lines.
Creighton and Green, for the plaintiffs,
insisted that the defendants were bound by the calls of Blackwell’s patents. The original corners are on the ground; and the rule is well settled that monuments shall control course and distance. If the defendants are confined to the actual calls of their patents, they have no reason to complain. If they intended to make the creek the boundary, they would have called for it as a controlling monument. McIver’s Lessee v. Walker, 4 Wheat. 444.
Olds, for the defendants, maintained that Blackwell, beyond all doubt, intended the creok as his eastern boundary; that it is pre posterous to suppose he intended for so many miles to cut off all communication with the creek; that where one calls to run “up the creek,” reason as well as authority carries him to the water. Rix v. Johnson, 5 N. H. 520; Jackson v. Louw, 12 Johns. 252; Rogers v. Mabe, 4 Dev. 180; Jefferson Seminary v. Wagnon, 1 Marsh. 243; Steele’s Heirs v. Taylor, 3 Marsh. 225; Cockrell v. McQuinn, 4 Mon. 61; Alexander v. Lively, 5 Mon. 159; Bruce v. Taylor, 2 J. J. Marsh. 160; Reid v. Langford, 3 J. J. Marsh. 420; 2 Over. 305.

Opinion:
Lane, C. J.
The plaintiff's survey and patent is bounded on the east line of the defendants' two patents, so that when the defendants' line is found it settles both. The description begins at a corner, which it describes by its timber, being the upper corner of Parker's survey, on Darby creek, running "up the creek," many stations described by course and distance only, to another corner, described by timber. The other patent calls are like this, beginning at the last named corner, thence up the creek, by course and *distance to a third timber corner. The corners are [510 all identified and stand on the bank of the creek. No original line was marked, but the described line corresponds, generally, with the meanders of the creek, and is found, on survey, to be but few poles from it. The case, then, is settled by a single point, whether a call "up the creek," by course and distance, means with the creek and bounded on the creek, or whether the notice of the creek is intended to indicate the general direction of the line, which is to remove locality by the course and distance.
Some cases are understood to have been decided on the circuit, many years ago, recognizing the latter as 'the true rule. Those decisions probably depended on special circumstances, not now known to us. The general principle is, first look for visible monuments, one of the most natural of which is a stream, and a line extended, referring to a stream, is presumed to lie on it, unless some circumstances appear indicative of a different intention. The present case furnishes abundant reason to reject any such intention. All the corners are on the creek, and it would be one of the most improbable suppositions; to presume a tract of land, lying for miles on a stream, and described by a line running parallel with its meanders, within a few poles or yards, was not intended to be bounded by the water. Judgment for the defendants.