Title: BUCKLEY v LAIRD
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12038
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 7, 1972

No. 12038 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1971 GEORGE D . B U C K L E Y , e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -vs - J A M E S V. LAIRD, et a l . , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Morrow, Nash and Sedivy, Bozeman, Montana. Edmund P. Sedivy argued, Bozeman, Montana. For Respondents : McKinley T. Anderson, Jr. argued, Bozeman, Montana. Submitted: December 1, 1971 Decided : F EB d - 1911) - . Filed: FEB 7 - 1 9 R M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of t h e Court. M r . and Mrs. Buckley and M r . and Mrs. Helppie brought t h i s a c t i o n i n the d i s t r i c t court of the eighteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of G a l l a t i n , t o q u i e t t i t l e t o a c e r t a i n s t r i p of land, a s a g a i n s t M r . and Mrs. Laird and M r . and Mrs. Hall, and a l l other persons claiming an i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n . The t r i a l c o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury, mzde findings of f a c t and conclu- sions of law and entered judgment f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s , and l a t e r , judgment nunc pro tunc. The t r i a l court by order denied defendants' exceptions t o the findings of f a c t and conclusions of law, judgment and judgment nunc pro tunc. Defendants appeal. P l a i n t i f f s Helppie and Buckley own c e r t a i n land near West Yellowstone, i n G a l l a t i n County, Montana, s i t u a t e i n t h e South Half of Section 21, Township 13 South, Range 4 East. Buckley had purchased the south h a l f of Section 21 from McCracken i n 1944. Immediately t h e r e a f t e r , they hired M r . Papke, a surveyor, and subdivided a portion of the property i n t o Lazy Acres Sub- d i v i s i o n . Beginning i n 1960 through 1963, Helppie purchased c e r t a i n l o t s i n Lazy Acres from Buckley, i n three s e p a r a t e t r a n s - a c t i o n s . A t the time Buckley purchased the property from McCracken, t h e r e was a fence on t h e north boundary of the property. This tence was mostly down but the posts and wire were v i s i b l e and Buckley showed Papke the fence, p r i o r t o h i s survey. The p l a t o t Lazy Acres a s prepared by Papke was f i l e d with the c l e r k and recorder of G a l l a t i n County i n 1948. Papke determined and s e t f o r t h i n h i s p l a t t h a t the east-west c e n t e r l i n e o t Section 2 1 was t h e north boundary of Lazy Acres. This north l i n e of Lazy Acres corresponds with t h e previous fence l i n e . Defendants, Laird and Hull, a t the time of t r i a l , claimed t o own a l l t h e land south of U.S. Highway 191 and n o r t h of t h e north l i n e of Lazy Acres Subdivision. James V. Laird, and h i s s i s t e r Mrs. Hull, acquired t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n t h e land a f t e r t h e death of t h e i r f a t h e r i n 1951. Their f a t h e r had acquired t h e land by deed i n 1926, from M r . and Mrs. Wakefield. The deed described the land so acquired a s being t h e "East h a l f of t h e northwest nuarter (E 1 1 2 , ~ ~ 114) and t h e west h a l f of t h e northeast q u a r t e r ( W 112, NE 1 / 4 ) , a l l located i n t h e North Half of Section 21, of Township 13 South, Range 4 East ." The Laird family had been on t h e property s i n c e 1904, and Laird had been f a m i l i a r with t h e land s i n c e 1917. After Helppie completed purchase of the l a s t of Lazy Acres i n 1963, they hired a surveyor, Thomas J. H a l l i n , t o survey t h e lands concerning t h e i r boundary l i n e between t h e i r property and Lairds ' property. Hallin completed h i s survey i n 1965, and de- livered t h e p l a t t o Helppie. The p l a t has never been recorded. Hallin concluded t h a t , i n h i s opinion, the t r u e east-west center l i n e of Section 21 was about f o r t y f e e t n o r t h of t h e n o r t h boundary of Lazy Acres, a s surveyed and platted by Papke. A t o t a l of about two acres o t land is i n dispute. Since about 1940, t h e r e has been a cabin home on t h e Laird property. There has been an outhouse on the two a c r e s t r i p of land i n dispute which was b u i l t by the Lairds i n 1942, and used by them ever s i n c e i n conjunction with the cabin home. Laird had a l s o used t h e s t r i p of land, now i n question, f o r c u t t i n g green t r e e s and firewood, walking, planting t r e e s , and other general use. Dad Laird had t o l d both h i s daughter Mrs. Hull, and her husband Mr. Hull, i n 1937, t h a t the south boundary of h i s property was a t t h e fence l i n e . Laird and Hull offered as evidence t a x r e c e i p t s showing t h a t s i n c e 1934, through 1967, they had paid a l l t h e taxes on t h e Laird land known a s Tract H. Laird paid the taxes on f o u r - f i f t h s o t t h e land and Hull paid t h e taxes on one-fifth. Track H i s t h a t portion of t h e land i n the north h a l f of Section 21, lying south of the c u r r e n t U.S. Highway 191, and north of the n o r t h l i n e of Lazy Acres, which includes t h e two a c r e s now i n dispute. Tract H was surveyed out by Laird on August 1, 1931, and the survey was f i l e d f o r record along with deed dated November 1 7 , 1953, trom Mrs. Vella E. Laird t o James V. Laird, o t Tract H , consisting of 13.35 a c r e s . Thereafter, t h e tax r e c e i p t s r e c i t e t h e payment of taxes by Laird and Hull on land i n the north h a l f 02 Section 21, "South o r Highway Desig.. on Assessor's P l a t s a s Tract H". Laird was o r i g i n a l l y paying t h e taxes on 10.68 a c r e s of the land and Hull was paying on 2.67 a c r e s . Later, a f t e r 1960, when approximately 2.8 acres of Tract H was deeded t o t h e S t a t e Highway Commission t o r right-of-way, Laird paid t h e taxes on 8.42 acres and Hull paid the taxes on 2.10 a c r e s . Buckley admitted t h a t the two a c r e s t r i p of land had never been used by him f o r any purpose. M r . Buckley thought t h a t t h e fence had been b u i l t i n 1935, and described it a s a barbed wire fence on posts. The fence was i n such shape t h a t anyone could s t i l l follow t h e l i n e today. Buckley, a f t e r s e l l i n g Lazy Acres Subdivi- sion t o Helppie, retained only a t r a c t of land of approximately two a c r e s , which was a l s o p l a t t e d by M r . Papke i n August 1961, using h i s previously determined center l i n e . The Buckley land i s located west of Lazy Acres. Mrs. Buckley admitted t h a t they a t no time ever made claim f o r o r went beyond the fence l i n e , which corresponded with the Papke survey, a s they assumed t h e fence l i n e was the boundary l i n e between the properties. Although tax r e c e i p t s were offered by Buckley t o show payment of taxes on land i n the south h a l f of Section 21, Mrs. Buckley admitted t h a t they assumed they were only paying taxes t o t h e fence l i n e . Helppie claims t i t l e t o t h e two a c r e s of land i n d i s p u t e , which l i e s between t h e northern boundary of Lazy Acres Subdivision and t h e east-west center l i n e of Section 21, a s found by surveyor Hallin. Helppie claims t o have paid taxes on t h e two a c r e s t r i p . However, t h e tax r e c e i p t s offered by Helppie reveal t h a t from the period 1960 t o 1965, they only paid taxes on " ~ a z y Acres Sub- d i v i s i o n Lots 2 through 5 and 8 , through 11, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28 and 29." In 1966, r e c e i p t s were offered by Helppie which reveal 11 t h a t !n addition t o the Lazy Acre l o t s , they paid taxes on Tract B a s Design. Assessor's P l a t being i n S W 1/4, l e s s HI4 21 13s 4E 14.35". N o evidence was ever offered t o show where Tract B was, other than on its face; t h i s 14.35 a c r e t r a c t i s i n t h e south h a l f of Section 21, and hence has nothing t o do with t h e two acres i n dispute. ' I n 1967, Helppie offered t h e i r r e c e i p t t o show t h a t they a l s o had paid taxes on property described a s "That porttion E 1/2- NE 1 / 2 - S ~ 1/4 lying 1 4 of Lazy A.Sub & S. of W.Y. HW. 21 13s 4E 15.46". Again, t h i s land is c l e a r l y located i n t h e south h a l f of Section 21, and a l s o west of the Lazy Acres Subdivision, and hence does not cover t h e two a c r e s i n dispute. The t a x r e c e i p t s offered by Buckley s i m i l a r l y show t h a t Buckley paid taxes on various l o t s i n Lazy Acres Subdivision during periods from 1954-1956, and i n 1960, and from 1963-1967. Buckley a l s o paid some taxes on t h e 14.35 a c r e Tract B , beginning i n 1954, and on Tract W, described a s "being 150' x 150' i n NW 1 / 4 - ~ ~ 1 / 4 , I N D . SITE". N o evidence was offered t h a t e i t h e r Tract W o r Tract B had anything t o do with the two a c r e t r a c t of land i n dispute. M r . Helppie admitted t h a t when he f i r s t purchased t h e property from Buckley i n 1960, he observed t h e wire fence. After receiving t h e Hallin survey, Helppie b u i l t a jack-log fence along t h e Hallin east-west c e n t e r l i n e of Section 21, but by the next spring someone had moved i t back t o t h e o r i g i n a l fence l i n e on t h e eas t-wes t center l i n e previously established by surveyor Papke. Helppie never consulted Laird about t h e new fence, p r i o r t o building it. M r . Helppie admitted t h a t they had made no other use of t h e two a c r e s t r i p i n dispute. Appellants s e t up t h r e e issues on appeal. (1) Are defendants Laird e n t i t l e d t o the two a c r e s t r i p i n dispute by adverse possession? (2) Are defendants Laird e n t i t l e d t o the two a c r e s t r i p by acquiesence? (3) Are defendants Laird e n t i t l e d t o the two a c r e s t r i p because the Papke survey l i n e i s t h e t r u e and c o r r e c t east-west center l i n e of Section 21? Respondents approach t h e problem from Issue No. 3 . Basically, respondents a s s e r t t h a t a l l the p a r t i e s intended t o claim only t o t h e . t r u e - east-west center l i n e of Section 21, when i t was estab- Mshed by a proper survey. They then r e j e c t t h e Papke survey a s indicated on t h e i r own o f f i c i a l p l a t , h i r e a new surveyor Hallin and a s s e r t h all in's survey a s the only "proper" survey. H a l l i n ' s c r i t i c a l points i n h i s survey were the q u a r t e r corners on t h e north-south s e c t i o n l i n e s of Section 21. On t h e west s e c t i o n l i n e , between Sections 20 and 21, Hallin made some independent judgments and reestablished the q u a r t e r corner. He admitted t h a t h i s reestablished q u a r t e r corner was about 50 f e e t n o r t h o t a point equi-distant between the section corners. .The 1901 U.S. government survey p l a t shows t h e a u a r t e r corner t o have been established equi-distant. In t h e 1930 resurvey, the resurvey notes show no evidence O L a q u a r t e r corner a t 40 chains north of t h e S W corner of Section 21. In reestablishing t h e quarter corner, the t r u e point for t h e quarter corner was 39.75 chains. This was noted t o " t a l l i n middle of highway t o West Yellowstone, bears N.W. & S.E., impracticable t o s e t cor." A witness corner was s e t a t 40.20 chains and marked with an iron post and brass cap. This same witness corner was used t o witness t h e 114 corner of Section 20, which was 40.59 chains from t h e S W corner of Section 21. The notes show the witness corner t o be i n f e e t , 29.7 f e e t north of t h e 114 corner of Section 21 and 25.74 f e e t south o r the 114 corner of Section 20. A s the survey l i n e on t h e s e c t i o n l i n e continued n o r t h e r l y , it was found t h a t t h e section corner common t o Sections 16, 1 7 , 20 and 21 was 79.50 chains north o t t h e south s e c t i o n corner. By computation t h e r e f o r e , t h e west q u a r t e r corner of Section 21 was 39.75 chains north and 39.75 chains south of t h e corners, o r equi-distant. Yet, Hallin found d i f f e r e n t measurements and, t h e r e f o r e , made h i s independent judgment t h a t t h e 114 corner was 50 f e e t north of t h a t point. He concluded and reestablished h i s own q u a r t e r corner so t h a t the south 1/2 s e c t i o n l i n e s measured 2668.43 f e e t , while the north h a l f measured 2576.55 f e e t , o r a d i f f e r e n c e of 91.88 f e e t . His reestablished quarter corner wound up 29.70 f e e t south of t h e witness corner o r t h e 1930 survey; but t h i s point wound up what Hallin estimated t o be some 8 o r 9 f e e t n o r t h of t h e c e n t e r l i n e of t h e road. N o w then, H a l l i n ' s 114 corner jibed with one measurement of t h e 1930 resurvey; t h a t measurement being feet 29.70lsouth of t h e witness corner. H a l l i n ' s 114 corner did not j i b e i n measurement t o e i t h e r s e c t i o n corner with t h e 1930 resurvey; nor did it j i b e with the a v a i l a b l e notes from the o r i g i n a l 1901 survey, nor another 1917 survey. O n the e a s t s e c t i o n l i n e , Hallin surveyed i n a s i m i l a r manner, except t h a t t h e r e he reestablished t h e 114 corner by proportionate measurements. Hallin then ran a s t r a i g h t l i n e between h i s reestablished e a s t and west 114 corners. None of the e x i s t i n g old fence l i n e s , the Lazy Acres measurements, corners of an e x i s t i n g school a c r e , nor other survey marks correspond with all in's new d i v i s i o n l i n e ; but t h i s new l i n e became i n respondents' eyes the "proper" l i n e and, f u r t h e r , t h e "true" l i n e t o which a l l adjoining properties must adhere. Hallin admitted t h a t he disregarded the other marks and evidences o r property l i n e s because, a s he put i t , "inasmuch a s I could find no b a s i s o r evidence of a survey a t t h e time I did t h i s work, we d i d n ' t ( s i c ) disregard i t and went t o t h e method I described t o find the east-west c e n t e r l i n e . " [Hallin did d i s - regard a l l other evidences other than h i s own "method".] Hallin did not discuss the problem with other landowners, nor did he seek out any other information concerning the east-west center l i n e o r any other monuments, n a t u r a l o r a r t i f i c i a l . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , defendant Laird i s a licensed engineer and surveyor who has been familiar with the ground f o r h i s e n t i r e l i f e t i m e and, although an i n t e r e s t e d party, he was not contacted by Hallin. Laird t e s t i f i e d t h a t the old tence i n question was b u i l t i n about 1917, f i f t e e n t o s i x t e e n years a f t e r the 1901 government survey, and t h a t he had used and referred t o the fence l i n e i n a deed description i n 1939, when some s i x a c r e s of property had been transkerred t o h i s brother. The "old fence" was r e f e r r e d t o i n t h r e e other deeds f o r boundary i n d e n t i i i c a t i o n . Laird a l s o t e s t i f i e d : That the east-west road was i n use and surveyed i n 1917. That the road was constructed upon t h e o r i g i n a l 1901 govern- ment east-west center l i n e and from h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n he concluded t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l e a s t a u a r t e r corner was some eighteen t o t h i r t y - e i g h t f e e t south of all in's q u a r t e r corner monument and almost on t h e Papke survey l i n e . That i n a l l of the recent deeds from him and h i s family t o the Montana Highway Commission t h e Papke survey had been used a s t h e basis of t h e d e s c r i p t i o n , and t h e deeds had been approved. It was ~ a i r d ' s opinion t h a t the witness corner from the 1930 government resurvey should have reference only t o t h e e a s t a u a r t e r corner of Section 20, r a t h e r than t h e west q u a r t e r corner of Section 21, although the 1930 notes purport t h a t it a p p l i e s t o both. The notes and p l a t survey of 1930 reveal t h a t t h e govern- ment surveyors were a t t h a t time only surveying f o r Sections 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 32, 33 and 34, of Township 13 South, Range 4 East, which had been unsurveyed and t h a t Section 21 had been t h e subject of the 1901 survey. The notes of t h e 1930 surveyor reveal t h a t he was unable t o l o c a t e t h e west q u a r t e r corner of Section 21, a s s e t by t h e 1901 survey. The notes f u r t h e r reveal t h e surveyor did decide t h e quarter corner should be i n t h e middle of t h e highway but t h e r e is no evidence t h a t surveyor ever went upon Section 21 t o look f o r monuments such a s t h e e x i s t i n g fence. Hallin was hired by Helppie t o perform a resurvey of the east-west center l i n e , a s s e t f o r t h i n the 1901 survey. The r u l e s f o r resurveys have been s e t f o r t h i n 12 Am J u r 2d, Boundaries, $61, p. 599: I I Resurveys. I t In surveying a t r a c t of land according t o a former p l a t o r survey, the surveyor's only duty is t o r e l o c a t e , upon t h e b e s t evidence obtain- a b l e , the courses and l i n e s a t t h e same place where o r i g i n a l l y located by the f i r s t surveyor on t h e ground. I n making t h e resurvey, he has the r i g h t t o use the f i e l d notes of t h e o r i g i n a l survey. The o b j e c ~ object of a resurvey is t o furnish proof of t h e location of the l o s t l i n e s o r monuments, not t o dispute t h e correctness of o r t o c o n t r o l t h e origina 1 survey. The origina 1-survey i n a 1 1 cases must, whenever possible, be r e t r a c e d , s i n c e it cannot be disregarded o r needlessly a l t e r e d a f t e r property r i g h t s have been acquired i n r e - l i a n c e upon it. O n a resurvey t o e s t a b l i s h l o s t boundaries, i f t h e o r i g i n a l corners can be found, t h e places where they were o r i g i n a l l y established a r e conclusive without regard t o whether they were i n f a c t c o r r e c t l y located, i n t h i s respect it has been s t a t e d t h a t the r u l e is based on t h e premise t h a t t h e s t a b i l i t y of boundary l i n e s is more important than minor inaccuracies or m i s - takes. But it has a l s o been s a i d t h a t g r e a t cau- t i o n must be used i n reference t o resurveys, s i n c e surveys made by d i f f e r e n t surveyors seldom wholly agree. A resurvey not shown t o have been based upon t h e o r i g i n a l survey is inconclusive i n d e t e r - mining boundaries and w i l l o r d i n a r i l y y i e l d t o a resurvey based upon known monuments and boundaries o t the o r i g i n a l survey." Since 1895, Montana has had a s t a t u t e , now known a s section 93-2201-4, R . C .M. 1947, which provides : I I Rules f o r construing description of lands. The following a r e the r u l e s f o r construing the descrip- t i v e part of a conveyance of r e a l property, when the construction i s doubtful and t h e r e a r e no other s u f f i c i e n t circumstances t o determine it: 2 When permanent and v i s i b l e o r ascertained boundaries o r monuments a r e inconsistent with the measurement, e i t h e r o t l i n e s , angles, o r s u r f a c e s , t h e boundaries o r monuments a r e paramount. I I The e a r l y Montana case of Myrick v. Peet, 56 Mont. 13, 20, 22, 180 P. 574., f u r t h e r discussed r u l e s concerning resurveys: 11 1 Before courses and distances can determine t h e boundary, a l l means f o r a s c e r t a i n i n g the location of the l o s t monuments must f i r s t be exhausted. ' (Ti-edeman on Rea 1 Property, sec. 832). 11 1 Prima f a c i e , a fixed v i s i b l e monument can never be r e j e c t e d a s f a l s e o r mistaken i n favor of mere course and distance a s the s t a r t i n g point, when t h e r e is nothing e l s e i n t h e terms of t h e grant t o c o n t r o l and over- r i d e the fixed and v i s i b l e c a l l . The general r u l e t h a t courses and distances must y i e l d t o n a t u r a l o r a r t i f i c i a l monuments r e s t s upon t h e l e g a l presumption t h a t a l l grants and convey- ances a r e made with reference t o an a c t u a l view of the premises by t h e p a r t i e s . ' (Tyler on Ejectment, 569; Garrard v. S i l v e r Peak Mines (C.C.) 82 Fed. 585, and cases t h e r e c i t e d . "'~onuments a r e f a c t s ; t h e field-notes and p l a t s indicating courses, d i s t a n c e s , and q u a n t i t i e s a r e but descriptions which serve t o a s s i s t i n a s c e r t a i n i n g those f a c t s . ' (Martin v. Carlin, 19 Wis. 454, 88 Am.Dec. 696.) When t h e r e is a c o n f l i c t between monuments and courses and d i s t a n c e s , t h e l a t t e r must y i e l d t o the former. (Devlin on Real Estate, sec. 1029). * * f~ "The law, t h e r e f o r e , i s t h a t where monuments can be recognized by competent c i v i l engineers, they a r e t o be taken a s t h e guide i n f i x i n g boundaries." In Vaught v . McClymond, 116 Mont. 542, 155 P.2d 612, t h i s Court r e s t a t e d the r u l e s enunciating the same p r i n c i p l e s . Respondents c i t e Vaught f o r language, emphasizing the surveyor's duty t o r e l o c a t e , upon the b e s t evidence obtainable the o r i g i n a l courses and l i n e s . Respondents i n s i s t t h a t & E n used t h e "best evidence" . The Hallin resurvey cannot c o n t r o l t h e location of t h e east-west center l i n e , because Hallin disregarded the basic r u l e , t o give g r e a t e r weight t o t h e monuments than t o mere measurements. In f a c t , Hallin completely disregarded a l l t h e a r t i f i c i a l monu- ments--the road, t h e REA power pole, t h e school acreage, and the fence, not t o mention t h e outhouse. The t h r e e government surveys i n 1901, 1917, and 1930 a r e inconsistent and inaccurate. For example, the 1901 survey does n o t even attempt t o l o c a t e t h e west quarter corner of Section 21. It located the e a s t quarter corner of Section 21, and placed it an equi-distant 40 chains from the northeast corner and 40 chains from t h e southeast corner. A reasonable assumption would be t h a t t h e west q u a r t e r corner would a l s o be 40 chains from t h e northwest corner and 40 chains from the southwest corner. However, i n 1917, t h e surveyor claimed he found a west q u a r t e r corner, which was 39.17 chains from t h e northwest corner. This surveyor did not measure the distance from h i s purported west q u a r t e r corner t o t h e southwest corner t o s e e i f t h i s i n any way checked with the 1901 survey. L a t e r , i n 1930, t h e surveyor finds no t r a c e of any west q u a r t e r corner of Section 21, but he measures t o a point equi- d i s t a n t between t h e northwest corner and t h e southwest corner, and finds t h e distance t o be 79.50 chains. He then s e t s a q u a r t e r corner which is 39.73 chains t o the northwest corner and 39.75 chains t o the southwest corner. F i n a l l y , i n 1964, surveyor Hallin comes along and, using the 1930 surveyor's witness corner, e s t a b l i s h e s h i s own west quarter corner which measures 2576.55 f e e t from the west q u a r t e r corner t o t h e northwest corner and 2600.26 f e e t from the west q u a r t e r corner t o t h e southwest corner, f o r a t o t a l of 5176.81 f e e t . Yet, the 1930 survey found the t o t a l distance between the northwest corner and the southwest corner was 5244.98 f e e t o r 79.5 chains. In between, t h e government surveys and the Hallin survey, Papke apparently finds the west q u a r t e r corner and t h e e a s t q u a r t e r corner of Section 2 1 , and when he t i e s them up, t h e east-west center l i n e of Section 21 happens t o coincide with t h e old fence, running e a s t and west across the middle of Section 21. L a t e r , Laird finds i n h i s survey, t h a t t h e Papke survey l i n e of t h e east-west center l i n e coincides with the school acreage i n Section 21, and a l s o coincides with an REA pole i n Section 21. Out of t h i s maze, several conclusions can be dravm. F i r s t , a f t e r the 1901 survey, none of the other surveyors, other an Papke and Laird, ever purported t o pay any a t t e n t i o n t o t h e a r t i f i c i a l monuments. In f a c t , t h e 1917 and 1930 surveyors d i d not even i n d i c a t e i n t h e i r notes t h a t they went upon the ground of Section 21 t o look f o r monuments. Second, Hallin only compounded t h e e r r o r , because r a t h e r than talking t o t h e people who had lived i n t h e a r e a , such a s Laird, and r a t h e r than giving considera t i o n t o the a r t i f i c i a l monuments, most of which had been t h e r e p r i o r t o 1930, such a s the road and fence, Hallin chose t o follow t h e 1930 survey and some of i t s survey monuments, including the 1930 witness corner f o r t h e west quarter corner, which, admittedly, were placed without giving consideration t o the e x i s t i n g a r t i f i c i a l monuments. How- ever, H a l l i n ' s measurements and location o r t h e west q u a r L e ~ corner do not even LO-respond wlth t h e 1 ~ 3 0 survey. Fillally, trle ~ e s u l t o r r;he Hallin survey runs contrary t o ~ a l l l n ' s own admission, t n a ~ no surveyor, arcer t n e 1901 survey, irlc l u d i ~ l g ihe l a t e r governmeni s u r ~ e y o r s , sllould have ally r i g h t t o change t h e l o c a t ~ o n o r amount O L a mall's property. Yet, t n i s is exactly wnai t n e Hallin s u ~ v e y purports t o do. The Papke survey tended t o p;eserve t h e exlstirlg l o ~ a t i o n s O L property o t t h e owners l i v i n g l n t h e area a t t h a t tlme. In f a c t , Hallin admitted t h a t i f from t h e 1901 survey e i t h e r t h e surveyor o r the property owners established t h e west q u a r t e r corner a t a point equi-dis t a n t from the northwest corner and the southwest corner, t h e west q u a r t e r corner would be a t a point f i f t y f e e t south of where Hallin has it now designated, and a t a point j u s t about exactly i n l i n e with the Papke survey. I n summary, t h e Papke survey is consistent with the general r u l e s of land description and survey and deviates the l e a s t from t h e o r i g i n a l 1901 survey. The east-west c e n t e r l i n e of Section 21, a s found by Papke, is held t o be the t r u e survey of t h i s l i n e , r a t h e r than t h e Hallin c e ~ t e r l i n e , which purports t o d i s r u p t and change the e x i s t i n g property l i n e s , not only between Helppie and L a i r d , but a l s o a f f e c t i n g a 11 adjoining land owners not a party t o t h i s a c t i o n , such a s M r . Kephart, t h e United S t a t e s Forest Service and the s t a t e of Montana, by v i r t u e of i t s school lands. Having found t h a t t h e t r i a l court was i n e r r o r i n adopting t h e Hallin survey and t h a t t h e Papke survey of t h e d i s - puted area i s the c o r r e c t one, it is not necessary t o discuss Issues 1 and 2 , adverse possession o r acquiescence. The judgment is reversed and t h e cause remanded f o r e n t r y of judgment i n favor of appellants. ~ s s o c a t e J u s t i c e Associate J u s t i c e s