McCormick v. Appleton
California Court of Appeal
225 Cal. App. 2d 591 (1964)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
In 1957, the Heavisides built a house on their residential-subdivision lot, which adjoined an unimproved lot owned by the Crowes. The Heavisides and Crowes were uncertain as to the exact location of the boundary between their lots. In 1958, the two couples came to an agreement on where the boundary should be fixed and decided to build a fence marking their agreed-upon boundary line. Later, the Heavisides sold their house and lot to James and Donna McCormick (plaintiffs), and the Crowes sold their lot to Hartley and Esther Appleton (defendants). In 1961, subdivision residents commissioned a new survey of their neighborhood. The McCormicks and many other residents agreed to help pay for the survey but refused to be bound by the survey’s findings. The completed survey, which was later determined to be inaccurate, showed the Appletons’ true property line running through the McCormicks’ bedroom. The McCormicks sued to quiet title. While that action was pending, Hartley Appleton, a lawyer, knocked down the boundary fence and trespassed on the McCormicks’ lot. The McCormicks amended their suit to claim damages and seek injunctive relief. The trial court ruled that the 1958 boundary-line agreement was binding, even though the five-year statute of limitations for revoking such agreements had not yet elapsed. The court enjoined the Appletons from trespassing on the McCormicks’ property and awarded compensatory and exemplary damages to the McCormicks. The Appletons appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taylor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.