Case Name: MORGAN v. CIELOHA
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-01-26
Citations: 74 Or. 468
Docket Number: 
Parties: MORGAN v. CIELOHA.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice Bean concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
Argued December 15, 1914,
modified January 26, 1915.
MORGAN v. CIELOHA.
(145 Pac. 1063.)
Quieting Title — Costs—Surveys.
1. The fees of a surveyor called in by the court, in a suit to quiet title to accretions, to assist in designating on the ground the points imperfectly indicated in the evidence, a survey being necessary to make any division intelligible, will be allowed as costs.
From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge.
This is a suit by W. H. H. Morgan against George W. Cieloha. From a decree in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Modified.
For appellant there was a brief and an oral argument by Mr. Henry M. Esterly.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. Omar C. Spencer and Messrs Carey & Kerr, with an oral argument by Mr. Spencer.
Department 2.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice McBride
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a companion case to Gillihan v. Cieloha, ante, p. 462 (145 Pac. 1061), just decided. The cases were tried together, and the testimony in the former case was stipulated into this case and is identical. We do not have the advantage of an actual survey upon the ground such as was made by Bonser in the former ease; but, taking the whole testimony into consideration, we believe a division responsive to the testimony will be reached by prolonging the line fixed by McQuinn's map as the dividing line between the holdings of the Gillihans and defendant in a direction north 3 degrees east, until it reaches low water on the Columbia River.
An objection in this case and in the case of Gillihan v. Cieloha, ante, p. 462 (145 Pac. 1061), is made to the allowance of the fee of $150 to McQuinn as part of the costs of the case; but a survey was absolutely necessary in order to make any division intelligible, and his survey makes any extended survey unnecessary. It is only equitable that he should be paid for his work. While the court had no authority to make him a referee to decide the controversy, we concede that it did have authority to call in mathematical assistance to designate on the ground the points indicated so imperfectly in the evidence, and the item is allowed. Neither party shall recover costs in this court.
The decree as above modified is affirmed.
Modified.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice Bean concur.