Ablard v. Fitzgerald
| Decision Date | 10 April 1894 |
| Citation | 58 N.W. 745,87 Wis. 516 |
| Parties | ABLARD v. FITZGERALD. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Fond du Lac county; N. S. Gilson, Judge.
Ejectment by William J. Ablard against Thomas Fitzgerald. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action of ejectment to recover a narrow strip of land lying on the further side of a partition fence between plaintiff's and defendant's lands, which has been maintained in the same place for more than 30 years. The answer was a general denial, and sets up the defense of adverse possession for over 20 years. Plaintiff produced a deed from John Norton to him, purporting to convey to him “the north half of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of section number six (6) in township number thirteen (13) north, of range number eighteen (18) east, beginning on the section line of sections five (5) and six (6), forty (40) rods north of the east quarter stake; running thence north forty (40) rods; thence west eighty (80) rods; thence south forty (40) rods; thence east eighty (80) rods; containing twenty (20) acres”--showed that there was a strip of land between the partition fence which had stood between him and the defendant's land for more than 30 years and the north line of his forty, comprising about one acre, of which the defendant was in possession, and rested. The defendant's attorney moved a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to prove title to the strip in controversy. The motion was denied. On the whole case the court found in favor of the defendant, on the ground that he had established an adverse possession of the land for more than 20 years. The defendant proved no paper title. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.Phelps & Watson, for appellant.
Duffy & McCrory, for respondent.
NEWMAN, J. (after stating the facts).
The plaintiff in ejectment recovers, if at all, on the strength of his own title. The plaintiff in this action failed utterly to show that he had title to the strip of land in dispute. The defendant's motion for a nonsuit should have been granted. The plaintiff produced no chain of paper title from Welton, the common grantor, nor either title or possession in Norton, his immediate grantor; so his claim is entirely unsupported by evidence of paper title, or the presumptions which possession in his grantor might give. Besides, it appears that the disputed strip is almost, if not quite, wholly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Macy
...v. Mabary, 125 Mo. 197; Harvey v. Anderson, 129 Mo. 206; Robinson v. Claggett, 149 Mo. 153; Schrack v. Zubler, 34 Pa. St. 38; Ablard v. Fitzgerald, 87 Wis. 516. A deed to be a valid conveyance must contain a definite or certain description of the property conveyed, so that the land intended......
-
Ill. Steel Co. v. Budzisz
...described were presented in Graeven v. Dieves, 68 Wis. 317, 31 N. W. 914;Dhein v. Beuscher, 83 Wis. 316, 53 N. W. 551;Ablard v. Fitzgerald, 87 Wis. 516, 58 N. W. 745;Sheppard v. Wilmott, 79 Wis. 15, 47 N. W. 1054;Elofrson v. Lindsay, 90 Wis. 203, 63 N. W. 89;Fuller v. Worth, 91 Wis. 406, 64......
-
Elofrson v. Lindsay
...without aid from the prior possession of his predecessors in possession. Graeven v. Dieves, 68 Wis. 317, 31 N. W. 914;Ablard v. Fitzgerald, 87 Wis. 516, 58 N. W. 745. But he did show actual possession of the strip. This is sufficient evidence of title to sustain his action, until the defend......
-
Slauson v. Goodrich Transp. Co.
...been in possession of the disputed premises, so as to give rise to any presumptions which such possession might give. Ablard v. Fitzgerald, 87 Wis. 516, 58 N. W. 745. But, if this were not so, there is still another reason why, under the situation presented, the conclusion of the trial cour......