Appeal from the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for Ormsby County; George S. Brown, Presiding Judge.
Geo. N. Noel, District Attorney of Storey County, and W. E. F. Deal, for Appellant.
Chas. H. Miller, District Attorney of Lyon County, and Mack & Green, for Respondent.
By the Court, Norcross J. (after stating the facts as above):
The only controversy in this case grows out of the fact that in the early 60's there were two places known as Reed's Station on the Carson River, distant about 27 miles from each other. It is the contention of counsel for Lyon County that the Reed's Station referred to in section 5 of the act of 1861, supra, was a Reed's Station located on the Carson River about eight miles easterly from Dayton, and shown to be situated in section 34, township 17 N, range 22 E. The Reed's Station claimed by counsel for Storey County to be the one intended by the act of 1861, supra, is situated in section 25, township 19 N., range 26 E. A number of witnesses upon the part of Lyon County testified regarding the location of a Reed's Station on the Carson River, about eight miles east of Dayton, existing in 1861, and prior and subsequent thereto, and it is admitted by counsel for Storey County that there was such a Reed's Station there at that time. Counsel for Storey County offered the testimony of a witness, Wm. H. Hodges, who testified to having been at a Reed's Station, about forty miles east of Virginia City on the Carson River in 1861, and other wit
nesses testified to having been at such station from 1862 to 1864.
Counsel for Lyon County, in rebuttal, offered the testimony of Mrs. L. D. Huntsman, who testified that she lived at Cottonwood Station from 1861 to 1868, and that the Reed who established the Reed's Station, claimed by Storey County, did not come there until about the year 1864 or 1865. Cottonwood Station is shown, upon a map filed as an exhibit upon the part of Storey County, to be about a mile to the east of the Reed's Station, claimed by Storey County. A certified copy of the township plat of township 19 N, range 26 E, made in 1868, shows a Reed's Station near the Carson River in the northwest quarter of section 25 of the township. Without regard to whether as a matter of fact there was a Reed's Station at the point claimed by Storey County as early as 1861, we think the lower court was warranted in reaching the conclusion that the Reed's Station about eight miles east of the town of Dayton was the Reed's Station intended by the territorial legislature and mentioned in section 5 of the act of 1861, supra. By a reference to any government map, it will appear that the Reed's Station claimed by Storey County to be the one designated in the act of 1861 is located about six or eight miles south of the town of Hazen in Churchill County; and, if this be true, the legislature has been laboring under a misapprehension for many years, for, if the contention of Storey County is correct, not only the land claimed by Lyon County, but a portion of Churchill County within its recognized boundaries, would also be within the confines of Storey County.
On April 9, 1904, the clerk of the board of county commissioners of Storey County, under the seal of the county, directed a letter to the clerk of the board of county commissioners of Lyon County, as follows: At a meeting of the board of county commissioners of Storey County, Nevada, held this day to consider the necessity of surveying the boundary line between Storey and Lyon County, it was moved and adopted by the said board that the deputy county surveyor, W. T. Moran, be
appointed to make the survey for Storey County and to meet the surveyor of Lyon County at Reed's Station, on Monday, the 25th day of April, 1904, or at such other date, after April 25, 1904, as shall be agreeable to the commissioners of Lyon County, Nevada, and at that date to commence the survey of the boundary line between Storey and Lyon County. It appears from the record that upon the 25th day of April, 1904, Thomas P. Mack, county surveyor of Lyon County, and W. T. Moran, deputy county surveyor of Storey County, met at Reed's Station upon the Carson River, eight miles below Dayton, in pursuance of directions of the respective boards of county commissioners of the two counties, for the purpose of making a joint survey of the eastern boundary line of Storey County. They proceeded to locate a point one mile below Reed's Station as claimed by Lyon County, and thereafter proceeded to locate a point three miles due north thereof. Before this point was definitely located Mr. Moran and his assistants returned to Storey County.
Upon the following day Mr. Mack and his assistants located a point three miles due north of a point on Carson River, one mile east of the said Reed's Station. At this point Mr. Mack made a search in the vicinity for an old corner monument, and found the same about one-half mile north of a little east of where he had determined the point to be, three miles from the Carson River. This latter monument consisted of a pile of stones four feet across the base and about two and one-half feet high, with a round post therein, pared off on three sides of the top. The northwest side of this post was marked Storey; the southwest side Lyon. This old monument being so far from the point where Mr. Mack had located the true corner to be, he ran another line for the purpose of verification, and finally located a point as the true southeast corner of Storey County, and marked the same accordingly. From this corner monument he ran a line north twenty-seven degrees forty-five minutes east to a point on the old immigrant road leading from the sink of the Humboldt to the lower crossing of the Truckee River,
717 feet east of said crossing, where he erected a monument, marking the same with the word Lyon on the east side, Storey on the west, and Washoe on the north. Mr. Mack prepared a map of this survey, which, together with the copies of his field notes, was filed with the authorities of Lyon County and copies thereof were introduced in evidence in this case.
It is not seriously contended that his survey is incorrect, provided the assumed starting point was in accordance with the provisions of the statute of 1861in other words, whether the Reed's Station assumed as the initial point for the commencement of the survey was the Reed's Station mentioned in the statute. We think this survey ought to be considered binding, unless the surveyors erred in making the survey with reference to the Reed's Station on the Carson River below Dayton. This survey appears to have been made in accordance with the provisions of an act entitled An act ...