225 N.W. 367 (Iowa 1929), 39191, Bone v. May

Docket Nº:39191
Citation:225 N.W. 367, 208 Iowa 1094
Opinion Judge:GRIMM, J.
Party Name:JOE G. BONE et al., Appellees, v. FRED D. MAY et al., Appellants
Attorney:W. S. Lewis, Tinley, Mitchell, Ross & Mitchell, and J. J. Ferguson, for appellants. George H. Mayne, Genung & Genung, and Galvin, Byers & Sullivan, for appellees.
Judge Panel:GRIMM, J. ALBERT, C. J., and EVANS, FAVILLE, and KINDIG, JJ., concur. ALBERT, C. J., and EVANS, FAVILLE, and KINDIG, JJ., concur.
Case Date:May 07, 1929
Court:Supreme Court of Iowa
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 367

225 N.W. 367 (Iowa 1929)

208 Iowa 1094

JOE G. BONE et al., Appellees,

v.

FRED D. MAY et al., Appellants

No. 39191

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 7, 1929

REHEARING DENIED SEPTEMBER 30, 1929.

Appeal from Mills District Court.--EARL PETERS, Judge.

This is an action in equity by the plaintiffs and Robert H. Poore, cross-petitioner (appellees), to quiet their title to an extensive body of land lying on the east bank of the Missouri River, in Mills County, Iowa. There was a decree in favor of the plaintiff and the cross-petitioner, Poore. The defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

W. S. Lewis, Tinley, Mitchell, Ross & Mitchell, and J. J. Ferguson, for appellants.

George H. Mayne, Genung & Genung, and Galvin, Byers & Sullivan, for appellees.

GRIMM, J. ALBERT, C. J., and EVANS, FAVILLE, and KINDIG, JJ., concur.

OPINION

GRIMM, J.

Briefly, it is claimed by the appellees that the [208 Iowa 1095] Missouri River, prior to the year 1895, had been steadily wearing away its east bank opposite certain lands of the appellees' lying east of the river, until, in 1895, it reached a line sometimes spoken of in the case as "the Dean line," which latter line appears to represent the most easterly advance of the river in that territory.

At the particular point in controversy, and at the time of the beginning of this suit, the east bank of the Missouri River ran substantially north and south. Immediately east of this east line of the Missouri River are, first, some government lots, and then, at the north, Section 13; and immediately south of Section 13 is Section 24; and south of Section 24 is Section 25. East of Section 24 is Section 19; east of Section 25 is Section 30; and east of Section 30 is Section 29. All of the land in controversy is between an east and west line on the north (being the north line of the south half of the north half of Section 13 projected), and another east and west line passing through the center of Sections 25, 30, and 29, projected to the river.

The Dean line, roughly speaking, so far as it is material in this case, intersects the north line of the property described, approximately a half a mile east of the east line of the river, as it flowed at the time this suit was filed, and it extended from that point in a southeasterly direction, passing near the northeast corner of Section 24, near the center of Section 19, and near the northwest corner of Section 29. At the south line of the property in controversy, this Dean line was more than two miles easterly of the east bank of the Missouri River. The territory in controversy, near the river, is approximately two miles wide, north and south.

In January, 1925, the plaintiffs (appellees) filed a suit in Mills County, Iowa, claiming ownership in certain lands through which or near which the Dean line passed, and also claiming all accretions attached to said lands and extending to the Missouri River. In February, 1926, Robert H. Poore (appellee) filed his cross-petition, alleging ownership in certain portions of the property through which or adjacent to which the Dean line passed, and also claiming accretions belonging to said...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP