Home/Idaho Supreme Court/Cramer v. Driesbach

Cramer v. Driesbach

287 P.2d 981, 77 Idaho 75, 1955 Ida. LEXIS 320
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 14, 1955
Docket8104
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 P.2d 981 (Cramer v. Driesbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cramer v. Driesbach, 287 P.2d 981, 77 Idaho 75, 1955 Ida. LEXIS 320 (Idaho 1955).

Opinion

TAYLOR, Chief Justice.

This appeal concerns boundary disputes between the parties. The defendants (respondents) were originally the owners of all of the lands involved, which lie in Section 21, Township 56 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Bonner County. Sometime about 1923 they caused a survey to be made by one, Ashley, for the purpose of de *77 scribing the boundaries of certain portions of the land which they at that time conveyed to one, Bush, and also to determine the boundaries of that portion of the land retained by them. By mesne conveyances, plaintiffs (appellants) became the owners in 1935 of the land conveyed to Bush.

Some of the lands are bounded on the east by Garfield Bay, an inlet of Pend Oreille Lake. According to the description in the Bush conveyance, all of the land retained by defendants, except what is known as tract B., lies south of the east-west center line of the section. Tract B., lying north of such center line, is contiguous thereto, the center line being the south boundary thereof.

In 1941, one, Tiggelbeck, a surveyor employed by defendants, made a plat of a subdivision known as Garfield Bay Add. No. 1. This subdivision covered land along the lake front in government lots Nos. 2 and 3. Tiggelbeck testified that he did not make a subdivision survey of the section, but started from monuments on the south line and ran north to monuments pointed out to him by defendant Driesbach, as marking the east-west center line of the section. He did not check to see if these monuments correctly located the center line. He found the distance from the south section line to the center line, as indicated by Driesbach, to be 2,700 feet, and testified he questioned the correctness of the center line and warned Driesbach it was too far north and that the indicated location was doubtful. Driesbach replied that the indicated points “were supposed to be correct and he was to use them.” Accordingly the plat of Garfield Bay Add. No. 1 locates all of the property in that subdivision south of the center line. Driesbach denies that Tiggel-beck questioned the center line location.

In 1946, one, Wilson, in the employ of the defendants, made a plat of Garfield Bay Add. No. 2, purporting to cover land, belonging to defendants, also lying south of the east-west center line of the section and between Garfield Bay Add. No. 1 on the east and a portion of plaintiffs’ property on the west.

In June, 1951, O. A. Modlin, a cadastral engineer, licensed to survey in Montana and Idaho, made a subdivision survey of section 21. He rechecked his survey again on the ground in June, 1953. Attached is a plat of section 21; also a plat covering the two areas in dispute, made by Modlin. One of the disputed areas is a portion of lot 1 in Garfield Bay Add. No. 1. The other is a strip covering the westerly portions of tract A and lots 1 to 14 in Garfield Bay Add. No. 2. Modlin started his survey at Homestead Entry Survey No. 514, Corner No. 4, and went west and found the

*78

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fry v. Smith
430 P.2d 486 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1967)
Nutterville v. McLam
367 P.2d 576 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1961)
Rich v. Burdick
362 P.2d 1088 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
287 P.2d 981, 77 Idaho 75, 1955 Ida. LEXIS 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cramer-v-driesbach-idaho-1955.