OCR Text |
Show 286 evidence of the western boundary as established by the Executive Order of March 30, 1870, and the accompanying notes of survey. Because the description of the western boundary is internally inconsistent justification exists for resort to applicable rules of construction. These rules are clear. Generally, monuments, whether artificial or natural, prevail over courses and distances or acreage for the purpose of determining the location of a boundary,63 and quantity is less reliable than any other element of description, particularly where the words "more or less" are added.04 The 1928 Survey applied these principles, giving control to the call for monuments in the 1870 notes of survey. Thus, if the 1928 survey properly located these monuments, it correctly established the boundary of the Reservation. The field notes of the 1928 survey65 demonstrate that the surveyor, in attempting to establish the width of the Colorado River as of 1869 for purposes of locating the monuments, referred to "the official map"' of the Hay & Wood Reserve. He then restored the monuments for the purposes of the survey with the aid of that "official map."68 The "official map" could only have been the 1870 map of the Reserve which is California Exhibit 3501. The surveyor was aware of the 1869 survey upon which the 1870 map was based.67 Indeed, he indicated knowledge of only one other survey68 and that survey purports only to represent 83United States v. Investment Co., 264 U. S. 206 (1924) ; Ayers v. Watson, 113 U. S. 594 (1885); Land Co. v. Saunders, 103 U. S. (13 Otto) 316 (1880); Higueras v. United States, 72 U. S. (5 Wall.) 827 (1864); Kruger & Birch Inc. v. DuBoyce, 241 F.2d 849 (3d Cir. 1957) ; County of St. Clair v. Lovingston, 90 U. S. (23 Wall.) 46, 62 (1874) (dictum); Patton on Titles §§149-50 (1957); 6 Thompson on Real Property § 3327 (1940). 646 Thompson on Real Property § 3344 (1940). 05Calif. Ex. 2616. 66Calif. Ex. 2616, pp. 8-9. "Calif. Ex. 2616, p. 3. "Ibid. |
Source |
Original Report: State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California |