This doesn't sound right (1937 case):

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

People v. Ayer, 18 Cal. App.2d 755 (Third District - 1937).

This involves the Sacramento River west boundary which bulges west into Section 19. The Court says when the river accreted east into Section 20 the Patent to the City of Red Bluff stopped at the east line of Section 19, T27N, R3W, MDM. I'm not an expert in water boundaries so I'm not sure if they are correct...

"It is the contention of respondents that, inasmuch as the patent to the townsite of Red Bluff described the easterly boundary line of block 86 as the Sacramento River, thereby block 86 would follow the changing course of the river and extend over into section 20. However, the government patent to Red Bluff limited its boundary at that point to the fractional east half of northeast quarter of section 19. The fact that the river at a later date moved eastward and across the section line into section 20 would not extend the limits of the city of Red Bluff. The owner of the adjacent property, whether an individual or a city in its proprietary capacity, would become the owner of the land created by accretion, but it would not thereby extend the boundary line of block 86 of the city of Red Bluff. The prior government patent, fixing the external boundary of the city and the section lines, must prevail over the boundary lines of a subdivision created by the city." (2nd paragraph from the bottom)

I found this case Westlaw key topic 120 DEEDS ->111 Construction in general:
Westlaw headnote: "When deed contains conflicting descriptions, court will harmonize and give effect to every part of description as a whole, if possible, but if this cannot be done it will reject that which is repugnant to general intent of instrument, and in ascertaining intention court will look into all surrounding facts, and give effect to description which is most definite and least likely to be mistaken or affected by errors."
This headnote is a result of the Court quoting California Jurisprudence DEEDS.

IMG_1426.PNG

[Ian Wilson]

Here's the case...

[E_Page]

I'll have to read the case and check the patent. At first blush, I agree, it doesn't make sense.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Apparently Red Bluff is a Townsite. GLO Records doesn't have the Patent image which went to Warner Earll (probably a local Judge) and occupants of Red Bluff.

Okay the line above is a cash entry Patent to Earll the Judge and the town. The Patent is visible there.

[Dave Karoly, PLS]

Brown cites Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 119 (1910) for the proposition that the section lines go straight across a pond (non-navigable) but I'm not seeing that. I don't have the diagram but the Plats show a pond near Oceanside. Justice Shaw (one of our best, no he is our best) starts out explaining the appeal is timely then he goes on to explain Johnstone and his Mortgagee have no valid title to the pond. Their title was based in a S&O Patent from the State but the pond was never properly declared S&O land, something like that, it's lengthy.