Vines v. Whitten

4 Cal. 230
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 4 Cal. 230 (Vines v. Whitten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vines v. Whitten, 4 Cal. 230 (Cal. 1854).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Heydenpeldt

delivered the opinion of the

Court. Mr. Ch. J. Murray concurred.

The County Surveyor’s Act is explicit in excluding, as evidence, the surveys of any other than the County Surveyor, except in those cases where it may be necessary to rebut or explain the official survey.

It is said here, by the respondent, that no survey was introduced in evidence. I cannot see how this position is maintained. To admit in evidence a survey, is certainly not confined to the presentation of a map, or plat. A survey is the result of measurement and calculation, and can be detailed from memory by a witness, as well as defined by a diagram. The witness Squib described a survey he had made, in order to find the lines and corners of Lusk’s survey, by which the land in the complaint is described. This was a re-survey. It is the object of the Act, wherever such a step is necessary, * that it shall be performed [231] by the County Surveyor, and a record of it kept in his office.

In order the better to enforce this design, all other surveys are excluded from evidence, except when necessary to impeach that of the County Surveyor, or, in the language of the Act, to explain, or rebut it.

[232]*232The policy of the Act is, I think, very obvious, and in all respects so commendable, that it ought to be maintained to its full effect.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

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

Related

Doherty v. Thayer
31 Cal. 140 (California Supreme Court, 1866)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Cal. 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vines-v-whitten-cal-1854.